Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 1—Mr. Gordon Campbell.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Even at this late hour, is there any chance of putting right the injustice that the whole of Question Time should be devoted to Scottish affairs on St. George's Day?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish hon. Members would not raise points of order during Questions, even on a day like this.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Land Commission

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy regarding the work of the Land Commission in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have asked the Commission to make available a large proportion of the land required for the growth of private enterprise housebuilding, and also to assemble land for planned expansions of existing towns and the creation of new communities. In the White Paper published last week we reaffirmed our confidence in the Commission as the instrument for returning to the community a substantial part of the development value created by the community.

Mr. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman now accept that the Land Commission's operations can cause unpredictable hardship to individuals? Does

he welcome in Scotland the exemptions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week?

Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State for Scotland was a party to that decision.

High Buildings

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the results of his discussions with local authorities in Scotland regarding meeting the costs of the work on strenthening of certain high buildings and the related expenses.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Authorities have been told that Government assistance will be available. There will be discussions tomorrow with the local authority associations, and later with individual authorities.

Mr. Campbell: But the question is, how much Government assistance? As local authorities can in no way be blamed, because the buildings met all the safety requirements at the time of construction, is it the Government's intention that no part of the expenses, including the moving expenses of tenants, will fall upon the local ratepayers?

Dr. Mabon: The Government always consult local authorities before making up their minds on things like that. The Government are not dictatorial, and we shall lay down nothing in advance of tomorrow's meeting. All together, 17 local authorities are involved and 170 blocks either completed or under construction. It is an extremely difficult problem and should not be lightly skated over.

Employment Targets

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which industries he has identified as having the greatest capability to contribute to his target of a gross increase of 130,000 jobs created in Scotland between now and 1970.

Mr. Ross: We are concerned to stimulate new growth and expansion by all industries and individual firms which can take advantage of Scottish resources and skills, and our efforts in this respect have achieved significant success.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the Minister of State's honesty in admitting the other day that the trend of employment and jobs in Scotland under this Government has gone precisely the opposite to that predicted in the National Plan? Is it still the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that the main increase in jobs in Scotland will come in the service industries? If so, what does he have to say about the latest increase in the Selective Employment Tax?

Mr. Ross: The Question deals with the target of a gross increase of 130,000 jobs. The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, be happy to know that we are well up to target with respect to them.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point about the S.E.T.? What estimate has been made of the loss of jobs in Scotland owing to the increase in the S.E.T.?

Mr. Ross: If the right hon. Gentleman likes to put down a Question about the S.E.T. I shall be glad to answer it.

British Standard Time

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of representations received by his Department to date about British Standard Time; and how many of these favoured and opposed the experiment, respectively.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): Since 22nd June, 1967, when the Government announced their decision to introduce British Standard Time, I have received 93 representations opposing it from local authorities, 52 from other representative organisations and 69 from private individuals or firms. I have also received nine petitions. No representations in favour of British Standard Time have been received officially.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How many more representations have to be made to the Government on this subject before the Secretary of State will use what influence he has—if he has any—to persuade the Home Secretary that it is time he rethought his absurd obstinacy on this matter?

Mr. Buchan: I have told the hon Gentleman before that it is our duty to look at the facts. We must examine the facts to see what is desirable. I ask the hon. Gentleman again to look at the facts before he simply starts counting heads in the sort of situation where people always tend to voice opposition rather than write in support, specially when hon. Members stump around the country encouraging them to do so.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chief Constable of Lanarkshire makes it clear that there has been no increase in accidents since the introduction of B.S.T.?

Mr. Buchan: I am not aware of that report. I will have another look at this. It is true that total casualties, including both adults and children, are down over the period of British Standard Time.

Prescription Charge Exemptions (Staff)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Ayrshire Executive Council to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September, 1968 and January, 1969; what was the number of patients found not to be entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed by the Fife Executive Council to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription charges; what is their estimated annual cost; what was the number of prescription charges checked between September, 1968 and January, 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have entitlement to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from those patients.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of clerical grade officers and senior officers employed on the Lothians and Edinburgh Executive Council to check the entitlement to exemption from prescription


charges; what was the number of prescriptions checked between September, 1968 and January, 1969; what was the number of patients found not to have been entitled to exemption; and what was the total of the charge recovered from the patients.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): As the Answer involves a number of figures I will circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why were these Questions taken together when they deal with different areas in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not raise a point of order on his own supplementary question. He must put his question.

Mr. Manuel: Could my hon. Friend indicate the additional charge, the additional workers and the additional expense entailed in saving a small amount, and does he think that it is worth while?

Mr. Millan: This matter has been debated on the question of prescription charges as a whole at very considerable length. Regrettable as it may be, it was necessary to impose the charges. In Ayrshire, the costs involved in checking the forms in the period covered by the Question have been about £700.

Mr. Hunter: Despite what my hon. Friend says, I feel that the prescription charges should be abolished, thus cutting out the need for exemptions. Does not he agree?

CHECKING OF CLAIM EXEMPTION FROM PRESCRIPTION CHARGES BETWEEN SEPTEMBER, 1968 AND JANUARY, 1969



Estimated Staff and costs on annual basis
Results of Checks



Number of Officers engaged on checking (whole-time equivalents)

Number of Prescription forms checked
Number of patients found to be not exempt





Executive Council
Senior Officers
Clerical Officers
Costs
Charges recovered





£


£
s.
d.


Ayrshire
—
1·5
700
2,356
25
4
2
6


Fife County
0·5
0·4
646
797
44
4
2
6


Lothians and Peebles
0·5
2·75
2,150
4,317
43
6
5
0


Edinburgh City

Geriatric Beds (Ayrshire)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of geriatric beds in Ayrshire; and

Mr. Millan: I could not agree, for the reasons I have just given, that obviously if there are charges and we have a system of exemptions, which is very much better than on previous occasions when prescription charges were levied, it is also necessary to have at least a minimum amount of checking to make sure that the system is working satisfactorily and is not open to abuse.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are still many people in my constituency who resent the imposition of prescription charges? Is he aware that many of my constituents know that there are additional administrative costs, although we do not have the figures at this stage? Does he agree that it is a bit Gilbertian that we should work a system that imposes additional costs yet we abolish the principle of free prescriptions?

Mr. Millan: I would be glad to debate the whole matter on another occasion, but it has never been denied that such a system involves a certain amount of additional administrative expense. It is not true that the additional expense is anything like the amount of money saved by prescription charges. The figures are not at all comparable.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the Minister consider the administrative and public guidance problems which, under the present scheme, have fallen on pharmacists, particularly in rural areas?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that that arises from the Question. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular question, perhaps he will put it down.

Following is the information:

how many old people are on the waiting list for geriatric beds.

Mr. Millan: Five hundred and thirty-seven staffed beds; on 28th February, 243 persons were on the waiting list.

Mr. Manuel: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most compelling needs today is a sufficiency of geriatric beds in all areas? Will he do everything possible to supply these needed geriatric beds in the county of Ayr, which has had a very good record in health matters?

Mr. Millan: I agree with what my hon. Friend said in the first part of his supplementary question. Ayrshire is not one of the worst areas in Scotland from this point of view, but even there matters can certainly be improved. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that there is a proposal for an extention of 60 beds at the Biggart Home, and the North Ayr District General Hospital, which is admittedly some way off, will have a 60-bed geriatric assessment unit.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that there is concern in some parts of Ayrshire that there are not enough beds now? Will he bear in mind that there are certain parts of Ayrshire where the proportion of older people is rather higher than the national average, and that this is a special factor which should be taken into account?

Mr. Millan: In calculating the requirements, we work on a standard based on the number of persons in the population over 65, which automatically takes account of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Housing (Bank Rate)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates will be the effect upon the housing programme in Scotland of the 8 per cent. Bank Rate.

Mr. Ross: The direct effect of Bank Rate on new construction is small. From the parallel increase in market rates local housing authorities are protected in considerable measure by the subsidy system introduced in 1967. The effect of increased mortgage rates on the private sector was the subject of a debate on 19th March.

Mr. Hutchison: But in view of the great importance of housing and the cost to local authorities and others of the interest rates, can the Government look into the possibility of something like a housing bank or special account isolated

from everything else, which can lend at very low rates?

Mr. Ross: That is a reasonable suggestion, and I shall certainly consider it. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that by our subsidy system introduced in 1967 we have created considerable protection for the local authorities from fluctuations of interest rates, as compared with, say, 1962, when there were high interest rates and the house building programme for local authorities in Scotland fell to 18,900.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance, first, that the 40,000 figure of completions will be reached this year, and, second, that we shall never again get down to the very low figures produced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Ross: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am not at all pessimistic about the outcome of our house building programme for this year. The thing to appreciate is that we have 55,000 houses under construction.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the very sharp drop in the number of houses completed in the first quarter of this year compared with the numbers completed in the same quarter last year?

Mr. Ross: The number of houses completed varies from quarter to quarter and year to year. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not as pessimistic as he is about the target which we hope to achieve this year.

Official State Visit

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the next official state visit of the head of a foreign state will be made to Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The President of the Italian Republic will spend three days in Scotland, from 25th to 27th April, as part of the state visit to this country which began yesterday.

Mr. Hutchison: The right hon. Gentleman will remember the very successful visit of King Olav to Scotland in particular. Perhaps another visit from a Head of State of a Scandinavian country


—Finland, for example—could be arranged?

Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there were very special ties and links in respect of the visit he mentioned. Certainly, if a similar sort of situation arose it would be given serious consideration.

Agricultural Buildings (Rating)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the rating of agricultural buildings.

Mr. Buchan: The National Farmers Union of Scotland has provided my right hon. Friend with a very full account of its views on the rating of intensive livestock buildings, and he discussed this subject with it following its annual general meeting last month. He is considering its representations, together with the other relevant factors, and will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Monro: Why is the Minister taking so long to come to a decision in principle on a matter about which he has a great deal of information? Is he aware that he could put a short Bill through the House this Session with all-party support?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware that there is a number of short Bills that hon. Members opposite might help us to put through very quickly, but we cannot always solve complex problems in that way. We are investigating all the problems involved and will make a statement as soon as is opportune.

Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that any rate relief to farmers is not passed on to the other ratepayers?

Mr. Buchan: This is a complex and in some ways controversial topic. All aspects will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Stodart: I have always admitted that this is a very complex problem. But does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has now come for a decision one way or another? Is he anxious to see the anomalies just go on increasing, or does he desire to restore the position to what the 1958 Act intended it to be? Can he assure us that at any rate we shall not necessarily be tied to a Bill about rating and valuation to decide

something which is essentially an agricultural matter?

Mr. Buchan: Hon. Members should await the statement that we shall make on this topic.

Firth of Clyde (Developments)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further discussions he has had with local authorities concerning major developments in the Firth of Clyde.

Mr. John Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendations contained in the Metra-Weddle Report.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend the Minister of State's recent discussion with the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee is relevant, and individual local authorities will be consulted when appropriate. The Murco application is the subject of an inquiry, and an application to build a power station at Inverkip is at present before me. Further planning action on the possible developments covered by the Metra-Weddle Report will depend on the submission of applications for development unless any of the local planning authorities concerned puts forward land use proposals in advance of the receipt of such applications.

Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all hon. Members will wish this important development every success in the production of employment in Scotland and congratulate the Clyde Development Group on its initiative?

Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to draw to the attention of his right hon. Friends the fact that the Clyde is the finest deep water anchorage in the United Kingdom and offers considerable advantages not only for Scottish but for United Kingdom industry? Will he undertake to bring what pressures he can to have the necessary political decision taken to build the iron ore terminal on the Clyde?

Mr. Ross: Yes. My hon. Friend thinks that this is a good commercial decision. [Interruption.] The attractions


of the Clyde are as my hon. Friend has said. Because of its attractions to industry and the prospects and possibilities, we thought that the right way to handle this matter was to get a comprehensive report into which we could fit individual applications as they were made.

Mr. Galbraith: Before embracing the precise details of this Report too enthusiastically, will the Secretary of State take a look at 19th century industrial development which has been so costly in socio-economic terms and be careful not to make exactly the same mistake of allowing industrial ribbon development down the Clyde?

Mr. Ross: Our planning procedures today are slightly ahead of those of the nineteenth century. However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. It is a concern which I share, as does every Scot who values the unique quality of the scenery of many parts of Scotland. Those things will be taken into consideration.

Teachers (Primary Schools)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he estimates the current shortage of teachers in Scottish primary schools will be overcome; and to what extent this is taken into account in the total number of married women now being trained in college.

Mr. Millan: I hope the national shortage will be overcome within the next year or two, although there may still be difficulty in some areas. I do not contemplate any restriction on the admission of married women to teacher training.

Mr. Hunter: Is my hon. Friend aware that concern is being expressed in England by those undertaking teacher-training, both young and mature students, about finding that a job is not available when they have finished their training? Does he foresee similar concern being expressed in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: I am glad to say that I am not responsible for England. No such concern has been expressed in Scotland, and I do not think that it will arise there.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that Glasgow is

carrying more than its fair share of the teacher shortage? Can he give any idea of the percentage of children in Glasgow who are now receiving part-time education in primary schools?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about that, I will certainly answer it.

Development Area (Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello)

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the exclusion of Edinburgh, Leith and Portobello from the Scottish development area.

Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) on Wednesday, 12th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 284–5.]

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the Secretary of State aware that his policy is strangling Edinburgh and merely transferring unemployment from one place to another, at considerable cost to the taxpayer? Is he aware that by the time we get the Hunt Report tomorrow it will be largely out of date because so many manufacturing firms have announced since the Hunt Committee took evidence that they are to leave Edinburgh?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's feelings about this subject have overrun his ability to read and appreciate statistics. Edinburgh is one of the places where employment has increased.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the last Recess I carried out a tour of industry in my constituency of Midlothian and that all the industrialists there who came from Edinburgh said that they had transferred from Edinburgh to Midlothian because in Edinburgh there was no room for expansion?

Mr. Ross: There is a certain amount of truth in that. There is no doubt that in Edinburgh there is limited room for expansion. I appreciate, however, the fears of those who see industry which has been in Edinburgh for some time leaving, but far too gloomy a view can be taken of that, as many people have been moving into Edinburgh after having spent a long time trying to get employment in their own areas.

Mr. Stodart: Has not the right hon. Gentleman time and time again defended the exclusion of Edinburgh because of its low unemployment rate? Does it not now have a higher rate than many development areas, including Aberdeen? Do the Government wish the industry which Edinburgh possesses to leave it?

Mr. Ross: Despite the changes which have taken place, I cannot see Edinburgh becoming depressed or comparable with the areas in Scotland which demand most of our attention, such as the Glasgow area, Port Glasgow, Greenock and so on. Hon. Members should face the relative position of Edinburgh as compared with the rest of the country, although I agree that some parts of Edinburgh probably command more sympathy than others.

House Building Costs

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average cost of building a four-apartment house in Scotland in 1964; and what was the average cost of building a similar house in 1968.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The average cost of building all types of four-apartment houses in the public sector, inclusive of land, site development and servicing and fees, was about £3,300 in 1964 and £4,400 in 1968. The increase in the average was caused by differences in the standards, type and location of houses as well as by increases in building costs.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is it not rather absurd that at a time when it is obviously necessary to cut down the cost of housing as much as possible the Government should be deliberately putting it up, as we have seen from this substantial increase, by such things as S.E.T.?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member has not given the factors their due weight. There are many factors. One which is significant and which we should all welcome is that some houses now have partial or complete central heating. Another is that there are far better housing layouts. These things are expensive.

Mr. Lawson: Can my hon. Friend give us some information about earlier years and say what the cost was in 1960, for example?

Dr. Mabon: The best estimate I have from the Department of the comparable cost in 1960 is slightly over £2,000. In other words, from 1960 to 1964 the increase was £1,300; our increase from 1964 to 1968 has been £1,100.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Surely it is pathetic for the Government to blame this increase upon central heating. Most of the increase has been the result of deliberate Government action, such as Selective Employment Tax, increased transport costs and the effects of devaluation.

Mr. Speaker: Questions should be questions and not statements.

Dr. Mabon: We are used to the hon. Gentleman's sweeping statements, but that was arrogance born of ignorance.

New Houses (Building Societies' Loans)

Mr. John Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the numbers of wage-earners who satisfy the conditions laid down by building societies in order to secure a loan for newly built three and four apartment houses; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I cannot make such an estimate because building societies do not operate uniform conditions but use a wide variety of criteria in deciding whether to make a loan. In 1967, one quarter of the new mortgage borrowers in Scotland earned less than £1,200 a year.

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. He will realise that the most important factor in determining whether one can have a loan for building new property is annual net earnings. Will he see whether the ratio of earnings and housing costs in Scotland is the main factor why there is such a vast difference between the number of owner-occupied houses being built in Scotland and the number being built in England and Wales?

Dr. Mabon: I thank my hon. Friend for that. This deserves full examination and when we have the Sidwell Report we shall couple it with our information from the building societies. We have no evidence that building societies have


any bias against wage earners, but if any hon. Member has such evidence, I should be happy to receive it.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of his well-known views about the effect of a Labour Government on the rates of charges by building societies, will enlisting the assistance of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) be considered?

Murders and Crimes of Violence

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what percentage the numbers of murders and crimes of violence, respectively, increased between 1957 and 1968.

Mr. Buchan: The number of murders made known to the police in Scotland increased from 12 in 1957 to 41 in 1968 (242 per cent.). In the same period crimes of violence increased from 1,116 to 3,586 (221 per cent.).
Since the figure for murder in 1968 has not yet been corrected in the light of subsequent judicial determination, uncorrected figures have been used for both years to ensure comparability. The figure for crimes of violence for 1968 is provisional.

Mr. Taylor: In view of those frightening figures, is the hon. Gentleman not seriously concerned that in the first three months of this year net recruitment to the Scottish police forces came to only eight? Has he in mind any new initiatives to encourage recruiting and to reduce wastage?

Mr. Buchan: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on looking for a positive answer, at least on this occasion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have now eased the partial restriction, and we hope that that will begin to bring the kind of results that we want.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman conducting any inquiry into the causes of the increase? If he is not doing so at present, would he consider a widespread inquiry of that kind because, if we do not know the causes, we cannot find solutions?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady should know that I have been conducting a continual inquiry ever since I began my present job. I have involved academic

institutes and other professional experts, as well as doing my own investigations. She is quite right when she says that there is no simple answer. This is a multifarious problem and it requires a multifarious solution. I hope that the reports which have been published in the last few weeks dealing with possible social measures in Glasgow will give an indication of one way forward.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the figures which my hon. Friend has given and in view of what he said in reply to that last question, will he say what sorts of solution to the problem are being entertained? Can he give us some guidance on the way in which his thoughts are developing?

Mr. Buchan: I have outlined the matter at considerable length in debate in the House over the last few months as well as in the major debate on the Report of the Estimates Committee last year. There are two main ways of dealing with it. One is the possibility of increasing the strength of the police in terms of numbers, detection methods and equipment. We are doing that. The other is to take the right kinds of social measure, as outlined in the report I recently published on the Glasgow area. Yet another way is to discover by investigation the particular causes within a Scottish context, on which there is a good deal of information in other areas.

Mr. Wylie: On this question of detection methods, while recognising the gravity of the problem, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has closed his mind to the possibility of widening the powers of search of the police?

Mr. Buchan: I do not think that that is part of the solution. I looked at it very carefully throughout last year, and neither the events since that period of discussion nor my own thinking illustrate the need for it. My view then was that it might have created a more complex and difficult problem in our industrial cities. I still adhere to that view.

Passenger Transport Authority, Glasgow (Cost)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the additional


cost to Glasgow ratepayers of establishing a passenger transport authority in the area.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: Is is not a shameful imposition on the ratepayers of Glasgow for the Minister to sit through four months of the Transport Bill providing for a P.T.A. without having any estimate of what it would cost? Can we at least have an assurance that he will not impose a P.T.A. on the Glasgow ratepayers without the agreement of the Glasgow Council?

Dr. Mabon: One cannot make an estimate when one does not know the area designated, the nature of the services which the P.T.A. will want to operate if it is set up, or the level of fares likely to be charged. It is quite ridiculous to imagine that anyone could make an estimate of that kind.
As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is that we should give the power of veto to any one authority not to impose a P.T.A. on any part of Scotland even if the others are willing, I am afraid that I cannot agree to that.

Mr. Taylor: On a point of order. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

House Building

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what large and small burghs have built the most houses, stating the number of private and local authority houses, from 1962 to 1968, respectively; and what is their position relative to other large and small burghs in Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend has written to my hon. Friend about the available information.

Mr. Eadie: While thanking my hon. Friend for that information, which illustrates clearly that this Government have built substantially more private and local authority houses than the Conservative Party did when it was in power, is he satisfied with the present method put into operation by local authorities to

ascertain housing needs? What action does he propose to take, for example, with local authorities which, despite the fact that there may be a housing need in their areas, do not build any houses?

Dr. Mabon: There are two points here about public sector and private sector housing. My hon. Friend knows how energetic the Government have been in drawing to the attention of all authorities the need to clear their waiting lists for public sector housing. My hon. Friend is quite right in what he says about private sector housing. We built 8,720 houses last year, which is the biggest figure since 1934. I would insist that it is our intention, through my right hon. Friend and the Land Commission, to see that we get a higher level of private house building in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions and Answers are lengthening.

"Roads in the Seventies"

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation he had with road and highways authorities prior to his publication of the White Paper for "Roads in the Seventies", and what fuller consultation he now proposes to have.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with road and highway authorities and regional economic groups before publishing the White Paper on "Roads in the Seventies".

Mr. Ross: In addition to consulting organisations representing road users and many other interests, my Department invited written comments from the local authority associations, and had meetings with them, on the basis of a draft which had been considered by the Scottish Economic Planning Council. The Consultative Groups have all regularly expressed their views on road priorities in their areas. As stated in the White Paper, there will be continuing discussion with individual local authorities on the details of the schemes to be undertaken in their areas.

Mr. McMillan: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, can he say whether Glasgow Corporation has entered into consultations with him and,


if so, what its attitude is to the White Paper proposals?

Mr. Ross: The White Paper proposals have produced general agreement, and we have had discussions with and comment from Glasgow.

Mr. Steel: Is the Minister aware of the disappointment in the Borders that the proposals put forward by the Borders Economic Consultative Group have not appeared in the White Paper? What weight will he attach to its representations in the continuing discussions?

Mr. Ross: Its representations carry considerable weight, speaking as it does for the local authorities in the area, and the Chairman of the Consultative Group is a member of the Economic Planning Council.

Council Tenants (Health)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reports he has received from health authorities regarding the health of council tenants; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: None. My Department receives annual reports from medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors of local authorities, but the information provided does not distinguish between council and other tenants.

Mr. Hannan: Does not that reply, coming from such a reputable source, confirm the view that there is no evidence of a decline in the moral fibre or otherwise of council house tenants in Scotland, as stated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith)? May we have an assurance that on grounds of economy my hon. Friend will not institute an inquiry into the health of wealthy landowners in Scotland who receive subsidies for forestry and agriculture?

Mr. Millan: I think that I can give that assurance; yes.

Comprehensive Education (Local Authority Plans)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have submitted plans for comprehensive education; and how many are outstanding.

Mr. Millan: All 35 authorities have submitted proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education on comprehensive lines, and these have now been wholly or substantially approved. Most of the proposals approved cover the whole area of the authority; in a few instances those for particular localities are still under discussion.

Mr. Hannan: Can my hon. Friend answer the latter part of the Question? How many are still outstanding? If they are few in number, will he name them?

Mr. Millan: There are no proposals outstanding in the sense that every authority has submitted proposals. There are one or two areas where detailed matters remain to be considered but, by and large, the proposals have been agreed.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that many local authorities do not accept the Socialist view that comprehensive education must be right for everyone everywhere? Will he restore freedom to local education authorities and bring to an end his shameful policy of coercion?

Mr. Millan: That is an absolutely absurd question. We have had excellent co-operation from local education authorities in implementing the suggestions in Circular 600. I certainly do not equate freedom in education, or the right kind of secondary education, with the question of fee-paying in local authority schools, as the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that comprehensive education has been the traditional form of education in Scotland and that it has a worldwide reputation? Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite are not acquainted with Scottish education.

Mr. Millan: That would not surprise me. As my right hon. Friend says, the idea of comprehensive reorganisation is not new in Scotland, and we have found ready acceptance of the idea among local education authorities.

Sidwell Report (House Building Costs)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to


receive the report of the Sidwell investigation into house building costs in Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In the autumn of 1970.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that it is thoroughly unsatisfactory that a Report into comparative house prices north and south of the Border should take three years at a time when the Building Societies Association's figures show that a new house in Scotland is anything up to £1,000 dearer than a comparable house in the North of England and the Midlands? Will he press for an interim Report on this important topic?

Dr. Mabon: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend. I have discussed this matter with Professor Sidwell. He is commissioned to do a thorough Report and he is firm in the belief that he will not be able to complete it before the autumn of 1970. However, he issued a first interim Report in October last year, and I am assured that we shall get a further interim Report in October this year from which we shall seek to learn lessons.

Mr. Younger: Will the comprehensiveness of the Sidwell Report include a written assessment of the extra costs put on Scottish house building by numerous Government impositions such as S.E.T. and transport charges during the last few years?

Dr. Mabon: That remains to be seen, Professor Sidwell is an objective man who will seek to put into his Report all the genuine factors, apart from political factors, that there have been over the years.

Comprehensive Education (Aberdeen)

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from Aberdeen Corporation regarding alterations in the agreed scheme of comprehensive reorganisation of schools.

Mr. Millan: The new proposals have not yet been put to me in detail but I understand that they provide for five "all through" comprehensive schools and five "four-year" schools.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that a large body of independent opinion in Aberdeen is appalled at the prospect of the scheme, which will perpetuate every division which comprehensive reorganisation is supposed to eliminate and can only result in the educational victimisation of a large number of children? Will he give it short shrift?

Mr. Millan: I am aware of these views. One difficulty is that details have not been submitted to me. Therefore, I am not able to judge what are the educational grounds, if any, on which the decision of the authority has recently been changed. But, when the proposals come in, I shall consider them very carefully.

Mr. MacArthur: When the Minister studies the problem again, will he bear in mind that, while comprehensive education has a fine part to play in the Scottish system, it has never been the informed educational opinion of Scotland that comprehensive education should be imposed on local authorities to the exclusion of all else?

Mr. Millan: What has happened in Aberdeen is that the proposals for comprehensive reorganisation, which were accepted, have now been changed. I find it difficult to know what are the educational grounds, if any, on which the change has been made.

Targets for 1971

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an interim report on the progress made towards the 1971 targets regarding the provision of roads, housing, new jobs, and in solving the emigration problem.

Mr. Ross: A formal interim report could not usefully add to the statistics on these matters that are regularly made available in the Digest of Scottish Statistics and in other official publications.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in his opinion we are reasonably on target as outlined in the five-year plan? In particular, will he confirm that there is a continuing favourable trend in the net emigration figures?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will know the figures, because I have given them often enough. On roads, we are well up


to target—probably beyond it—and it will be achieved by 1970.
The last two years have been record years in house building.
Our fulfilment on the provision of new jobs is almost double what was achieved by the previous Administration. They seem to be the only people in Scotland who are not aware of the progress being made.
Last year the drift south was the lowest figure achieved for about nine years.

Mrs. Ewing: Is not the Secretary of State hampered in making economic forecasts about jobs by the lack of information on Scotland's vital statistics?

Mr. Ross: I take a great interest in vital statistics. I assure the hon. Lady that I have never been hampered by lack of information. I think that what the hon. Lady means is statistics about our economic development. This Government have provided and have set out to get more statistics to light the path towards progress than any other Government.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the Secretary of State look at page 9 of his White Paper of 1966 where it is recorded that in the four years 1960 to 1964 157,000 new jobs were created, whereas his target over six years is 130,000, which is considerably less? Therefore, what he has just said is not correct.

Mr. Ross: What I said just now is absolutely correct. Anyone can do what the hon. Gentleman is doing. If one selects two dates carefully one can get the answer one wants. I have already answered a Question about the 130,000 gross new jobs promised. The figures are correct. There are other aspects about which the hon. Gentleman has not thought.

The Highlands (Public Expenditure)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in public spending on housing, education, health, roads, and in the Highlands in the last four years, as compared with the previous four years, expressed in 1960 prices.

Mr. Ross: Figures cannot be provided at 1960 prices, or for years before 1962–63. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL

REPORT figures of public expenditure in Scotland, at current prices, on housing, education, health and roads in the years 1963–64 and 1967–68, and an estimate of the expenditure in the same years in the Highlands and Islands by my Departments and the Forestry Commission.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that the figures will be extremely satisfactory.

Mr. Ross: I can assure my hon. Friend, if he wants the aggregate figures, that it is an increase between these two years of £228 million.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication by how much his plans have had to be cut back in the last year?

Mr. Ross: When we have had to cut back our plans we have given the information to the House straight away.

Following are the figures:


PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN SCOTLAND





£m.



1963–64
1967–68
Increase


Housing
120·0
196·9
76·9


Education (excluding universities)
128·9
186·4
57·5


Health (and welfare)
113·4
172·5
59·1


Roads (including lighting)
41·3
63·2
21·9


EXPENDITURE IN THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS


Secretary of State's Departments and Forestry Commission
30·8
43·8
13·0

Outline Comprehensive Redevelopment Schemes (Glasgow Corporation)

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from Glasgow Corporation amending the progress on the outline comprehensive redevelopment schemes.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir.

Mr. McMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that any setback in housing in Glasgow is almost a criminal act, and will he take every step to ensure that that does not happen? Will he also take note that Glasgow is one of the few local authorities in Scotland which has not taken advantage of the rating of empty property?

Dr. Mabon: On the second point, I accept that that is a matter for the Corporation, because we have provided for that in the Act.
On the first point, I entirely agree. Because of the change in administration and the decisions taken thereafter, Glasgow has lost 2,500 houses.

Mr. Small: Will the Minister indicate what reasons were advanced by Glasgow Corporation for cancelling the Partick redevelopment scheme?

Dr. Mabon: The governing party there, supported by another minority party in the Corporation, decided to withdraw the Partick, North and South C.D.A. because of objections by local shopkeepers and they want to resubmit it to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Galbraith: Is it not a fact that in that area, which is in my constituency, many of the houses are in excellent condition and that there are other areas in Glasgow far more in need of being developed before the Partick area?

Dr. Mabon: I accept some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I should point out that the last time the Scottish Office approved a C.D.A. in Glasgow was 9th June, 1966. We were promised three C.D.A.s in the interval between then and the end of last year. We have not received one. Partick was to be the next one.

Educational Building

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much educational building he estimates will be started in 1970; and how this compares with 1968.

Mr. Millan: It is not possible to forecast starts with any accuracy for calendar years. I shall be in touch with education authorities shortly about the allocation of starts for the financial year 1970–71, which takes in the greater part of the calendar year 1970.

Mr. Brewis: As the hon. Gentleman has given no information I shall not ask a supplementary question.

Housing Improvement Grants

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list the local authorities which had not achieved by 1967 a rate of 10 per 1,000

houses in their granting of housing improvement grants; and which authorities have not operated the scheme.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The numbers of local authorities are 24 and five respectively. I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Brewis: As the Collingworth Report described the decision of certain local authorities not to give these grants as inexcusable, and sometimes because they did not wish to support the private housing sector, will the hon. Gentleman make sure that these authorities carry out the Government's policy by making these grants mandatory?

Dr. Mabon: I should not like to give a definite answer to that at this juncture. I should like to consider it. I agree that all kinds of pressure could be brought to bear on these authorities to give grants. I think, therefore, that it would be fair to call on the hon. Gentleman to persuade Whithorn in his constituency to do so, on the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel)—I am sure that his local authority will readily help him in Lauder—on the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) in relation to Alyth, on the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in relation to Ayr, and on the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) in relation to Grantown-on-Spey.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Lists make long answers.

Following are the details:
Local authorities which by 1967 had approved fewer discretionary improvement grants than 10 per 1,000 private houses (those which had approved none marked *).
Alyth*, Ayr*, Barrhead, Bathgate, Bearsden, Bo'ness, Clydebank, Coatbridge, Dundee, Dunns, Glasgow, Grantown-on-Spey*, Hamilton, Helensburgh, Lauder*, Milngavie, Motherwell and Wishaw, Paisley, Renfrew, Ruther-glen, Stewarton, Tranent, Whitburn and Whithorn*.

Sugar Beet Acreage (Cupar Factory)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total acreage of sugar beet contracted with the Cupar sugar factory for the current season.

Mr. Buchan: The figure is 13,642 acres as at 18th April.

Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the increased costs which have arisen since the Price Review, and as there has been no increase in the price of sugar beet, does the hon. Gentleman agree that if this splendid increase is to be maintained the Government must give long-term assurances to the sugar beet growers in Scotland?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman knows some of the difficulties behind that question, but it is worth saying that in 1963 when his Government halved the transport subvention beet acreage likewise halved. We have doubled the transport subvention, and doubled the acreage, and I find that very satisfactory.

Forth and Tay Road Bridges (Season Tickets)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received asking for the provision of season ticket facilities for the Forth and Tay Road Bridges; and what reply he has sent.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Eight relating to the Forth Bridge and five to the Tay Bridge since the bridges opened. No reply was sent to six as they were part of objections to the recently proposed increases in tolls on the Forth Bridge. The others were sent to the respective Joint Boards for their consideration.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a case for looking at the regulations to enable regular users of these bridges to have season tickets on the basis of a discount, rather than on the basis allowed by the present regulation?

Dr. Mabon: It is for the joint boards to express their views on that.

Mr. Wiliam Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say when the report on the projected toll increases is expected to be published, and will he say whether he has ruled out completely the abolition of tolls?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot give a date for the report. If there were difficulties in Fife we should have to look at the question of tolls, but I am glad to say that Fife is a booming county.

Hunter Report

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects

to annonce his proposals as a result of the Hunter Committee Report.

Mr. Buchan: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to the Question which he asked on 23rd October, 1968; I cannot yet add to it.—[Vol. 770, c. 1272–3.]

Mr. Dalyell: Is it accepted that a great many worth-while things can be done for Scottish anglers without involving the Chancellor at all?

Mr. Buchan: I think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that I should bring in some interim proposals. I have said repeatedly, and I say again, that I should prefer to deal with the recommendations of the Hunter Committee as a single entity.

Mr. Stodart: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is being incredibly dilatory, even for him and his Government? Is he aware that already tests are being made on one of the English rivers to count by electronic methods the number of salmon going up the rivers? That was one of the main recommendations of the Hunter Report. Why cannot it be done in Scotland?

Mr. Buchan: That is a perfect example of why we were correct in taking time. One of the proposals was to have a more expensive method of counting. Time has allowed research to take place, and a cheaper method has come forward. This illustrates our correctness in taking time to consider very fully all the implications of the Report.

Milk Producers (Costs and Incomes)

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the additional costs which will have to be borne by milk producers during the next 12 months; what these costs are; and what additional income it is estimated milk producers will receive as a result of the awards made in the recent Price Review.

Mr. Buchan: Known cost changes are assessed on a United Kingdom basis and cannot be precisely allocated to individual commodities. The determinations at this year's Review increased the value of the guarantees to Scottish milk producers by about £330,000.

Mr. Stodart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish milk producers will inevitably be heavily out of pocket as a result of this Review because of the rise in the price of feeding stuffs and fertilisers? When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is no use increasing dairy herds unless there is an increase in the sales of liquid milk, why cannot he consider the potential savings in imports of cheese and butter?

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman knows the complexity of this problem. In his earlier argument he ignored the problem that arises in connection with milk products. There are other aspects of the Review which will be of benefit to most farmers in addition to dairy farmers.

Employment on Scottish Farms

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the recent price review awards were designed to stop the fall in the numbers of those employed on Scottish farms.

Mr. Buchan: Labour requirements were among the factors taken into account at the Annual Review.

Mr. Stodart: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman entirely unaware of the fact that it is no longer possible, by mechanisation, to absorb the decrease in the labour force that has been taking place, and which is now down to crisis levels? The wage increase of 16s. a week from next month will not be enough to keep men on the land.

Mr. Buchan: I hope that the farming community will note the latter remarks of the hon. Member. The Board's proposals are for minimum wages. This does not prevent the hon. Gentleman on his farm, or any of his colleagues on their farms, from adding to those wages.

Employment

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by which date in 1970 the employment targets contained in the Command Paper entitled The Scottish Economy, 1965–1970, will be reached.

Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add to the replies which I have given to the hon. Member on 5th February, 4th December

and previous occasions.—[Vol. 777, c. 400–1; Vol. 774, c. 1502–3; Vol. 770, c. 1260.]

Mr. MacArthur: Will the right hon. Gentleman please try to do better now? Is he aware that to achieve his pre-election target he will need to create a net addition of 95,000 jobs by next year? As his achievement so far has been not a gain but a net loss of 35,000 jobs, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly how this net increase is to be achieved, when, and where?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if his Government had left the development of the Scottish economy in a much healthier position things would be very much easier now. The hon. Gentleman knows that in respect of new jobs—

Mr. MacArthur: In 1966?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman had plenty to say in his supplementary question. Let him keep quiet now.
We have achieved our target of new jobs. I have said before, and I say again, that the speed of change and the rate of decline in our older industries has been greater than was forecast. What we have to do now is to press on with even greater efforts to provide new jobs, and we are doing that. I have here the Bank of Scotland's Report in which Lord Polwarth said:
Despite all difficulties and uncertainties … the outlook for the Scottish economy … remains reasonably encouraging.
The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) talks about a bonanza for Scotland. No wonder the retiring Chairman of the Young Conservatives said that the Tories in Scotland did not even speak the language of the Scottish people.

Mr. Lawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest losses to employment in Scotland is from the badly paid agricultural industry, and that one of the biggest gains is in the highly paid electronics industry?

Mr. Ross: That is one of the facts of change. I think I said during the agriculture debate that in the last 10 years we had lost 192,000 jobs in agriculture. The electronics industry is one of the biggest growth industries in Scotland.

Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you have often said that private Members must not make quotations at Question Time. Is it in order for a Minister to quote?

Mr. Speaker: What binds a private Member when asking Questions does not bind a Minister. Nothing binds a Minister.

Egg Producers (Transport Subvention)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he has made of the effect of the transport subvention proposed for Northern Ireland egg producers on producers in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: Details of the assistance to be given to egg producers in Northern Ireland and Orkney are being worked out. Full consideration is being given to the effects on producers on the Scottish mainland.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Scottish National Farmers' Union will be consulted about the rate of subvention, in view of the transport problems confronting Scottish producers who are far removed from major markets on the mainland?

Mr. Buchan: As always, we shall consult all the bodies that are concerned. The hon. Member may know that the National Farmers' Union made representations to us about the proposals, and the Union has also had discussions with officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. On this, as on any other question involving the farmer-producers of Scotland, we shall be giving full and adequate consideration to the views expressed before making up our minds as to our final decision.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House, seriously, that long Answers and long Questions prevent a Member who has taken the trouble to put a Question on the Order Paper from having the satisfaction of putting it and of asking a supplementary question, when it is not reached.

KENYA (UNITED KINGDOM CITIZENS)

Mr. David Steel: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the High Commissioner in Nairobi refused admission vouchers to the United Kingdom to the two British citizens who were imprisoned yesterday in Kisumu for overstaying their permitted term of residence in Kenya.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): The British High Commissioner has not refused admission vouchers to these two United Kingdom citizens; their applications for vouchers are being processed in the usual way. The two persons concerned gave no indication to the High Commission that they were under pressure to leave Kenya immediately. The High Commissioner is continuing to make urgent inquiries into the circumstances surrounding their case.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful for that reply. Can the Minister say whether the High Commission is in touch with the two people in prison and has access to them at the moment?

Mr. Foley: It is in touch, and I believe that it does have access.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In view of the fact that these two men have been given ten days' detention and have been told that on the termination of that period they will be deported, is not the urgency self-evident? Is there any need for further inquiry?

Mr. Foley: From the information available to us at the moment, I am not convinced that the two men in question went through the processes and, indeed, asked for an extension of their permits or indicated to the High Commission that they were about to leave. I can say that if people from Kenya are compelled to leave and everything else has been exhausted they will be given their vouchers.

Mr. Braine: I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear the Minister's answer. Is he satisfied that the processing in Nairobi of applications from United Kingdom citizens to come to this country is proceeding satisfactorily and in a humane way?

Mr. Foley: I believe that it is, but this demands the co-operation of the people at the other end. If they indicate that there is a time limit in terms of their permits and they are then advised to renew them and they do not, clearly this poses an obstacle and a difficulty. If they indicate that there is a degree of urgency either about their financial situation or about the length of stay they are permitted in Kenya, that is taken into consideration by the High Commission. I am satisfied that these criteria are applied strictly and humanely.

Mr. Whitaker: Since we have compensated white Kenyans for the loss of their farms, does not my hon. Friend consider that we have a moral obligation to compensate British Asian citizens in Kenya who have lost their property and have also had their passports devalued?

Mr. Foley: That is an entirely different question.

Captain W. Elliott: Is not it an appalling way for a Government to behave, to deprive people of their livelihood and then send them to prison? What protests are the Government making about this behaviour?

Mr. Foley: I do not want to reiterate the whole history in relation to Kenya Asians. I would point out that the gentleman who sentenced these two men to ten days in prison—the magistrate—was named Patel. Many Asians have opted for Kenyan citizenship. It is their home and it is where they have made their livelihood. They cannot both have their cake and eat it.

BILL PRESENTED

EQUAL PAY

Bill to established the principle of equal pay, presented by Mr. Christopher Norwood; supported by Mr. David Winnick, Mrs. Anne Kerr, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Norman Atkinson, and Mr. John Lee; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 141.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Peart.]

BILL OF RIGHTS

3.35 p.m.

Viscount Lambton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to preserve the rights of the individual.
I cannot help thinking that it was somewhat inconsistent that this legislation was not brought in last year, because 1968 was designated as Human Rights Year, and to this the British Government officially subscribed. But what it was all about, and what it actually did, is difficult to tell. If we look back to the most memorable events of 1968, we find that what we most forcefully recollect are the intensification of the war in Vietnam, the intensification of the war in Nigeria and the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. None of those events could remotely be described as helpful to the promotion of human rights. Neither was any attempt made by this county to establish what rights individuals had.
I hope that it may be said uncontentiously that certain legislation can be said to have had precisely the opposite effect. The curious thing is that if we want to find any action about the preservation of rights in this country we have to go back to the famous Bill of Rights of 1688. All of its provisions appear by this time to have been totally eroded. It goes without saying that since then a great deal has happened, especially during the years since the Reform Bill, when the State has anually extended its power. As long ago as 1884 Herbert Spencer wrote:
Regulations have been made in yearly growing numbers restraining the citizen in directions where his actions were previously unchecked and compelling actions which previously he might perform or not as he liked.
Although this was written 85 years ago, since then more restrictions have been placed upon freedom than in the previous 200 years, about which Spencer was writing.
If we look at the legislation introduced recently and that which it is proposed should be introduced in the near future, we see that it is hard to deny, whichever way one looks at it, that freedom is being seriously curtailed—sometimes unintentionally. Although the Race Relations Act attempts to benefit a section of the community, at the same time, without doubt, it definitely curtails freedom of speech.
Nor can it be denied that, whatever one may think of the educational philosophy of the Government, it is based on a misplaced idealism which denies that parents shall have their children educated by whom they want where they want. If we go into the broader realm of land ownership, we see that the Town and Country Planning Act means—as the Leader of the House knows only too well—that every farmer's property is now held by him only on sufferance. Let us consider more domestic issues. Factory and health inspectors have the right to enter private places without warrant. Only last year there was a withdrawal of passports for the holding of political opinions.
I could give many more examples, because they are legion. Some hon. Members opposite would argue that this legislation has been necessary, but it is difficult for them at the same time to say that the cumulative effect of all these laws has not been overwhelmingly hard on those traditional freedoms which we have become used to accepting as being there. Almost without realisation we are approaching that time which is so often written about in literature of the all-powerful State.
While some hon. Members will agree with the measures which I propose, many will fear that it would be difficult to make any enactment on this subject. For that reason my Bill has been based and is largely modelled on the Act for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom which was assented to in the Canadian Parliament on 10th August, 1960. This ensures that all future legislation is checked by the Canadian Minister of Justice to see that it does not conflict with the principles of the Act. My Bill proposes that a similar check should be made by the Attorney-General.
Those who doubt that the Bill could become a reality should accept that a similar law has been enacted in Canada, that it has been operating for the last nine years, that it has ensured individual rights and that legislation conflicting with those rights has been checked without any constitutional upset.
Lest it be said by some that a Bill like this on such a contentious subject

cannot be faultless, hon. Members are well aware—this particularly applies to hon. Gentlemen opposite—that very few Bills have not been improved as a result of their Committee stages. With the good will of the House, any defects which may at first sight appear in my Measure could be ironed out.
The time has come for a Bill like this. After all, we live in an age of continuous legislation. It is being produced in such quantities that detailed inspection of it has become a physical impossibility. Numerous laws are on the Statute Book of which the ordinary voter has no knowledge. If this trend is allowed to continue indefinitely, those who have elected us to look after their interests could one day find that, without their knowledge, they are without rights, are unprotected and are without redress against laws which they did not know had been made.
This is a matter which should be above contention. I hope, therefore, that I shall have the support of the House in introducing the Bill.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I dissent from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) with diffidence, because he represents a conventional wisdom which is growing on this subject and which has been espoused not only by himself but by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), by the learned gentleman Anthony Lester in a Fabian pamphlet and by much of the Press. I do so with diffidence also because any radical conscience, aware of the need to preserve the liberty of the individual, must always seek some new institution to enable that to be done.
The discussion about where the line shoud be drawn in the conflicting liberties between different individuals is a discussion not just about the conflict of the individual with the State but about the conflict of the individual with any organised power, including landlords, employers, sometimes the Press, and the most powerful institution in the country today, television. It is a question of where the line should be drawn at any given time.
Although the hon. Gentleman was critical of the policies and achievements of the Labour Party, I am by no means


ashamed of the battle for liberty that has been waged by successive Labour Governments. It was the 1945 Labour Government who first made it possible for the individual to sue the Crown. A Labour Government first made it possible for the individual who had no resources of his own to stand in a position of equality with the richest man before our courts of law.
It was the present Labour Government—certainly not their Conservative predecessor—who gave the Parliamentary Commissioner the power to intervene in areas where previously the State had had full control. Last year the present Labour Government passed an Act to give equality in housing, jobs and services for all people, whatever their race and colour. This was an essential precondition of liberty and it was made by the House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman says that all this is not enough. But we already have two Bills of Rights. We have the great Charter and the Bill of Rights to which he referred. Neither of them is protection against a new Act because that always amends its predecessor.
What the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone want is a Measure which would put a fetter on the right of this House to change the law. In deciding whether that is desirable one must look at what the effect of such a fetter on change would be. If the institution that would fetter change was liberal and progressive, it might be to the good. It might have stopped the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of last year. A majority of the House of Commons might have stopped it. That was all that was required.
But if this institution was conservative—be it a constitutional court, a supreme court, a committee or the Attorney-

General—and if it was regressive as well as conservative, then the inflexibility of our machinery for changing the law when obvious social injustice appeared, would make it a gravely retrograde measure for human liberty.

It should be remembered that the American Civil War was precipitated because the Dred Scott decision was made by the Supreme Court at a peculiarly embarrassing time for those who wanted to preserve peace and unity in the United States. If the Supreme Court had, at that time, had more foresight and had been more liberal, it might not have been necessary for the Americans to have had their Civil War.

This is the real test. It is not that one has different institutions but the kind of people who man them, whether those institutions be a Supreme Court, a constitutional court or the House of Commons. This Bill and any Measure like it is really a reflection on the House. It says, in effect, that this House is not worthy of its rôle as the guardian of liberty and that it does not have the foresight to preserve liberty in a changing economic and social climate. That is not true.

This House wakens to the need to preserve liberty and is the best instrument available. It is far better than the American constitutional procedure through the Supreme Court and, by being both flexible and fair, it can preserve liberty and do justice to those who have been oppressed.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 161.

Division No. 165.]
AYES
[3.49 p.m.


Astor, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Currie, C. B. H.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dance, James


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Braine, Bernard
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Balniel, Lord
Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bessell, Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Biffen, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clegg, Walter
Eyre, Reginald


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Costain, A. P.
Farr, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Crawshaw, Richard
Fisher, Nigel


Blaker, Peter
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Fortescue, Tim




Galbraith, Hn. T. C.
MacArthur Ian
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Scott-Hopkins, James


Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gower, Raymond
Marten, Neil
Sheldon, Robert


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sinclair, Sir George


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector
Stodart, Anthony


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hooson, Emlyn
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Waddington, David


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Ward, Dame Irene


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, A. W.


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Kimball, Marcus
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Kitson, Timothy
Peel, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Lambton, Viscount
Percival, Ian
Worsley, Marcus


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, John
Wright, Esmond


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wylie, N. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Henry
Prior, J. M. L.
Younger, Hn. George


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Pym, Francis



Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, Gilbert
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Mr. Frank Pearson and


Lubbock, Eric
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Victor Goodhew.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackie, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Alldritt, Walter
Ford, Ben
McNamara, J. Kevin


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Baxter, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Manuel, Archie


Beaney, Alan
Gregory, Arnold
Mapp, Charles


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Marquand, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Blackburn, F.
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mikardo, Ian


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hannan, William
Molloy, William


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brooks, Edwin
Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan


Buchan, Norman
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Norwood, Christopher


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
O'Malley, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Concannon, J. D.
Huckfield, Leslie
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Cronin, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Delargy, Hugh
Jones T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lewis Ron (Carlisle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edelman, Maurice
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Ellis, John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


English, Michael
McBride Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ensor, David
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
MacColl, James
Small, William


Finch, Harold
Macdonald, A. H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)







Stewart, Rt. Hn, Michael
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Watkins, David (Consett)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Thomson, Rt. Hn, George
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Thornton, Ernest
Whitlock, William



Tinn, James
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Roy Roebuck and


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Dr. Hugh Gray.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — ANGUILLA

Mr. Speaker: We have already lost part of a short debate. I hope that back benchers who are called will be reasonably brief when we get to them.

3.58 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the inept handling by Her Majesty's Government of the situation in Anguilla.
We have placed this Motion on the Order Paper because of the story of mismanagement, miscalculation, misjudgment and ineptitude which has characterised the Government's handling of the Anguillan situation from the start, and also because there is a theme of insensitivity running through the political direction of diplomacy which has all the appearances in this Government of a chronic disease. We need only think of the Falkland Islands, I' affaire Soames and now Anguilla. The reputation of Britain cannot afford any more such displays.
I will relate the tale of Anguilla. The Government opted for the creation of a unitary State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, but knew at the time that the Anguillans detested and thoroughly disapproved the prospect of being managed by and from St. Kitts in that unitary State.

Mr. Donald Chapman: It just is not true.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman may make his case and seek to prove that what I have said is not true, but perhaps he will allow me to make my case, which will suggest that there were different courses and perhaps better courses that might have been taken.
Nevertheless, the Government decided to take this risk. But having selected this solution the inexplicable thing is that the Government did not insist on the one feature of the Constitution which could have induced the Anguillans to accept it, and that was the appointment of the three elected councils, one for each of the islands. Incredibly, nothing was done in this respect either before Independence Day or in 1967, or in 1968, or, indeed, in 1969. The Foreign Secretary must answer the question: why not? It is conceivable, this solution having been selected, that had the councils been appointed this solution might, although I can never put it higher than that, have worked. To them it was this lapse which confirmed the Anguillans in their belief that St. Kitts did not mean to honour the Constitution, and that the British Government did not intend to do anything about it.
The Government's excuses in this respect have so far been too lame for words. At the Independence celebrations there were demonstrations against association with a unitary State including St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) told the House on his return from the Independence celebrations:
It is quite clear that Anguilla is part of St. Kitts and Nevis, and when I met the Deputy Premier it was clear that the bulk of the people expressed that wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 715.]
With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it was not clear at all.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), the present Secretary of State for Wales—

Mr. Arthur Bottomley: I am obliged to the right hon Gentleman for giving way. I was quite clear at the time that the majority of the people did wish the association. They wished it on the basis of having their own local council. If that had been given


them at the time by the Premier of St. Kitts, I do not think that we would have had the trouble we are having.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That, I am afraid, is a very big "if". It was not done and, unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, the proof of the pudding has been in the eating. The Anguillans, as we shall see as the story unfolds, clearly do not wish to be part of St. Kitts. It was not, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman's judgment, at all clear at that time.
The right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for Wales was questioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) about the appointment of the island council to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East attaches importance, as I do. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I understand that the necessary arrangements are proceeding and I am not aware that any difficulties have arisen since the inauguration of statehood."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 1435.]
The necessary arrangements were not proceeding, and everyone else was aware that difficulties had arisen since the inauguration of statehood. Yet this was a Government spokesman speaking. Why was he not aware of this, as so many others were? I ask, because at that time my noble Friend, Lord Jellicoe, in another place was questioning the Government, and thus expressing our misgivings, and getting the same kind of complacent reply as was being given by other Ministers in this House.

Mr. Evan Luard: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, if it was so obvious from the very beginning that Anguilla would never accept association with St. Kitts and Nevis, this point was not made clear at any point during the debate here on associated statehood on 31st January, 1967, by any Opposition spokesman, including those on the Opposition Front Bench?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the assumption was that the Constitution would be worked as written down. If the local council had been appointed, that was a possible solution—it was no better than that at any time—but this local council has not been appointed, and that

has made a great difference to the point of view of the Anguillans—there is no question of that.
It was not until my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) went to Anguilla and advised the appointment of a resident official that there was any halt to the policy of drift and any grip taken of the situation at all. Unfortunately, that grip was more apparent than real. The House would like to know from the Foreign Secretary what advice was given by Mr. Lee during his tenure of office as a resident in the island, in that apparently wasted year. Did he report that the union with St. Kitts was not acceptable to Anguilla? Did he make any recommendations that would make such a union more acceptable to the people of Anguilla?
There is another matter that so far, I am bound to say, the answers given by the Under-Secretary of State in an earlier debate leave totally obscure. Who were—coming to more recent days—the "Mafia" type men on Anguilla? Were they dreamed up by the Under-Secretary after his talks with Mr. Bradshaw? Like other people, I have seen individuals who have come from the island of Anguilla, some of whom have lived there for some time. They never saw these men, and Anguilla is not the place where one can miss people.
In this context, the Under-Secretary made a very curious statement. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) for the number of foreign nationals on the island. The Under-Secretary could not tell my hon. Friend. He did not know, because
there was no one there to count them …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1554.]
Is the Foreign Secretary intending to tell us seriously that in the predictable situation of tension building up in the island of Anguilla, which had been known for so long, Mr. Lee was never even sent an understudy or any support—that no one was sent to him to remain on the island—so that there was no one at all on the island to communicate with the right hon. Gentleman and with the British Government? That attitude to administration is not only negligent but positively flippant.
What about the arms? There were a few. Some arms were imported by Mr. Webster—not, let me say, to oppose the British, but in case the Anguillans were abandoned by the British and the people of St. Kitts succeeded in taking over. What about the crates of arms of which the Under-Secretary told us? Have those crates ever been found? The arms said to have been imported by these undesirable gentlemen have not been found. They have not been seen to be taken away. So what, so far, do we know? The men are faceless and nameless, the crates are unopened and invisible. All, apparently, have evaporated into thin air.
The Government story really stretches credibility too far. I do not know whether the Foreign Secretary saw the presentation on television. Our troops did their duty, as they always do, but their advancing with fixed bayonets on to the beaches of Anguilla as though they were invading a foreign Power stretched credibility too far. These Anguillans have always been simple, British subjects, loyal to the Queen, and to suggest anything else was to give a totally false impression to the country.
And what about the comings and goings of Ministers, of the Ministerial team, to and from this tiny State? We had Lord Shepherd, we had the Under-Secretary, we had Lord Caradon first and then we had Lord Caradon again. I can almost hear the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary rehearsing:
Tripping hither, tripping thither,
Nobody knows why or whither,
If you ask the special function,
Of our never ceasing motion,
We reply, without compunction,
That we haven't any notion.
What a field-day that would have been for Mr. Gilbert! Will the Foreign Secretary please tell us if this other noble and roving Lord is to be let loose on to this stage? If he were to join the dance there would have been nothing like it since the Lobster Quadrille.
Is Mr. Lee coming or going? Poor Mr. Lee, he has done his duty. To whom does the authority now belong in Anguilla, to Mr. Lee or Mr. Cumber? Why when at Lord Caradon's first meeting all was smiles and at the second there was all tears with accusations of bad faith? There is a great deal of explanation to be done

by the Foreign Secretary before the House can be satisfied that this matter has been well handled in any way.
We understand and accept that it was never the policy of Her Majesty's Government to compel the Anguillans to live under St. Kitts, but why did the right hon. Gentleman not say so plainly and forestall all this trouble and nonsense? The serious part of the matter now is how this muddle is to be undone. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will tell us. Is it to require a new Act of Parliament? Is it true that under the West Indies Act the British Government can only divide an associated State at the request of and with the consent of that State? Therefore, would it need legislation not only in the State Legislature but in these Houses of Parliament? How do the Government intend to proceed in future?
Perhaps the Foreign Secretary can enlighten the House how he proposes to approach the problem of associated status of such territories in future, because there will be more territories with problems of a similar nature to those of Anguilla. Is there not a case for charging a senior Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with a knowledge of the Commonwealth and perhaps machinery for contact and consultation, with responsibility in the endless problems which will arise? It is not for me to interfere in the Government's appointments, but is not the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) sitting twiddling his very able thumbs? Might he not be given this job to do?
Some of these islands will be developed in future. I am told there are applications for development coming forward from many of them. There is no one responsible in some of these places who could deal with those applications and see that they are properly channelled and looked at. There seems an overwhelming case for giving this job to a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Chapman: Are not questions of land development matters of internal affairs over which we would not have control anyway?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is important that the British Government should be informed, but they have not been informed on these matters. There is no one to keep the British Government


informed and no one to co-ordinate action, no consultation with local people to see that the best interests of such territories are served. I am asking for an improvement which I think is practicable in the machinery of government. There will be a host of these matters which will arise, small in themselves but of great importance to the reputation of Britain.
The Anguillans are simple people. They are loyal to the British Crown. It is a shame that they should be the victims of fumbling diplomacy by the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the ridicule of the Government action which has made us the cartoonists' delight in so many countries outside our island. He must quickly and firmly put this matter right, both for the Anguillans and for Britain.

4.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): Before I comment on Anguilla, I will follow the example of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and make a very brief reference to two other matters of foreign affairs which he brought in as a makeweight to prop up his rather lightly bolstered case.
One was what the right hon. Gentleman described as "the Soames affair", which was debated in this House and with which only a very small group of hon. Members thought it wise to express their disagreement with the Government's handling. It was open to the right hon. Gentleman himself to do then as some of his hon. Friends did. There was a vote, but the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Lobby.
On the Falkland Islands, I repeat that we have had two objectives. One was to make it quite clear that we will not hand those islands over against their will, and the second was to achieve, if we can, agreement for the benefit of the islanders with the Argentine Government. That seems to me, although a difficult undertaking, one that it is right and legitimate to try to undertake. Let us push what for the purposes of this debate were the right hon. Gentleman's make-

weights—[An HON. MEMBER: "Paperweights."]—to one side and turn to the Anguillan question.
I noted the particular points of criticism that the right hon. Gentleman made. The first was concerned with the actual creation of an associated State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. I noticed that he did not criticise the concept of associated statehood. One knows that it is a concept which has difficulties, but I do not believe anyone has yet found a preferable alternative to it in the Caribbean situation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we all knew, or ought to have known at the time, that an associated State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla would not work. As an hon. Friend pointed out, if hon. Members opposite did know that at the time, they were remarkably silent about it. The whole structure of setting up associated States, including the creation of the associated State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, was in accordance with the unanimous recommendations of constitutional conferences on this part of the world, and it was done with the agreement of the Member for Anguilla in the Legislature of this associated State. So when the right hon. Gentleman suggests that everyone knew, or ought to have known at the time, that it would not work, he is exercising a facility of hindsight that is denied to lesser mortals.
There was the further criticism that nothing was done about the admittedly important question of the election of a council for Anguilla within the administration of the associated State. But that was not so. The desirability of doing this had been made clear to the St. Kitts Government. It was one of the recommendations of the conference. On this question agreement was reached that was satisfactory to the other island, Nevis, and when in February, 1967, the associated State came into being there was every reason to believe that by the end of the year there would be elected local councils functioning in both islands. That was not merely the Government's judgment; it was the view of the experienced West Indian who was at that time the Administrator of the State. It was reasonable, therefore, to proceed in accordance with the conference recommendations to create the State and reasonable to expect the establishment


within a reasonable period of the elected council.
It was only a few months after the associated State was established that the people in Anguilla took the step of expelling the St. Kitts police from the island. I believe there was an obligation on them at that time to exercise greater patience, the more so as the example of Nevis had shown that agreement was not impossible.

Viscount Lambton: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question which he did not previously answer? Was it necessary for the Royal Marines to land to install the first representative from St. Kitts in February, 1967?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is asking about the installation at the time. I believe that it was a reasonable step to take at that time. The point which I am now making, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, is that as to the elected council there was good reason to suppose that that would come into existence during the year. It was an act of unwisdom—

Mr. Neil Marten: rose—

Mr. Stewart: This is a short debate, and I have given way once. At the moment I am answering the speech which was made. I believe that it is the wish of the House that I should speak as fully as possible in answering the particular charges which were made by the right hon. Gentleman, and then leave hon. Members to make their points in the subsequent debate.
I do not believe there is anything in the criticism that one ought to have known from the start that it would not work. There is nothing in the criticism about the elected council. That problem, given greater patience, could have been solved.
The next charge was that of neglect in the period which followed May, 1967, when the St. Kitts police were expelled and when the island entered on a period which one can speak of as illegal independence.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No, I am sorry. I am replying to a series of some half a dozen

criticisms made by the right hon. Gentleman. I think that I should have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he will not give way. Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Foreign Secretary's whole case has been destroyed by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton).

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of opinion, not a point of order.

Mr. Stewart: The further suggestion was made that during this period there was a neglect of administration as well as a neglect of opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman drew a picture of Mr. Lee cut off without supporting staff. He is wrong about that. There was a supporting staff. He had communications direct with London, and he was able to keep in close touch not only with London but with the British Government representative in the associated State whose office was on a neighbouring island.
What were the steps which ought to have been taken during this period? The first step, I believe, in view of what happened, was to consult with the Caribbean Governments. This was not a situation where we were dealing with—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Under-Secretary of State has said in the House that the numbers of people on the island could not be counted because there was nobody there to give the information. Why was nobody there? What was the supporter of Mr. Lee doing?

Mr. Stewart: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is raising the question of how many foreign nationals there were on the island. It was not possible to determine, for reasons which I will explain. One must remember that during this period there was an interim settlement without any Commissioner from Her Majesty with authority to administer the island. It was an unusual arrangement justified by the fact that both the Anguillans and the whole Cabinet of the associated State had agreed to it. But it did not give to Mr. Lee the authority which he now has as Her Majesty's Commissioner.
I was saying that the right thing to do first was to consult with the Caribbean Governments. We were not dealing with a British colony where we could simply step in and act entirely by ourselves. The right thing, since difficulties had arisen in an associated State in this new political creation, was to consult with the Caribbean Governments. That was done at the Barbados Conference in the summer of that year.
Subsequently—I am sure the House will agree that this was a right step to take—hon. Members from this House went out to examine the situation, and this resulted in the so-called interim settlement. I do not believe that the steps taken so far can be criticised. It was right to send out the Parliamentary delegation, it was right to consult at the Barbados Conference, and it was right, since the interim settlement—unusual though the arrangement was—had the agreement of both sides, to proceed with it.
It seems to me that the charge of neglect can be made only by somebody who holds that at the first sign of difficulty arising in the associated State, we ought to have stepped in directly and possibly jeopardised the whole belief in the workability of the associated State concept. I believe that would have been an error of judgment, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman, in the same position, would have come to the same conclusion.
I turn to the situation which existed in Anguilla during the period of the interim settlement and the period thereafter when, owing to increasing difficulties, the interim settlement broke down and illegal authority reigned in Anguilla. During the period of the interim settlement, Mr. Lee did everything he could to carry out the job intended for him—to try to conciliate. I do not believe that anybody who knows the history of the matter would subscribe to any criticism of how he sought to carry out that duty. It is true that in the end he failed; the circumstances were too strong for him. But I am certain that it was right of him to make the attempt.
With the failure of the interim settlement, Anguilla entered a period not only of illegal rule in the nominal sense of the word but of increasingly lawless rule.

On this matter the right hon. Gentleman made merry. It was all done by faceless people. It was all very nice, and we were exaggerating it. This is not how people in the Caribbean see it.
The facts can be fairly described in this way. The people of Anguilla were being put in increasing danger of being ruled by a corrupt, self-interested regime, supporting itself increasingly by intimidation. [An HON MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I will give one example by way of illustration: the activities of Mr. Holcomb, an American citizen who is now no longer in the island.
Mr. Holcomb was described as the legal adviser to the independent republic of Anguilla, although he had no legal qualifications of a kind which would have been recognised anywhere in the world, other than in the self-styled independent republic of Anguilla. However, he set to work to draft a constitution of a kind which would give opportunities for tax evasion, which would provide the island with a supreme court whose members would not need any legal qualifications other than those possessed—or rather not possessed—by Mr. Holcomb himself, and which would make it pretty sure that if any advantages emerged from the development of the island they would be restricted to a small group of people rather than benefit the people of Anguilla as a whole. He was also engaged on certain industrial proposals which would have had substantially the same effect.
It was dislike of the St. Kitts Government which caused the people of Anguilla to see in Mr. Webster somebody who personified that dislike. In effect, these rather disreputable proposals were to be carried out, as it were, on the band wagon of dislike of St. Kitts. If that was not sufficient, they could be backed up by intimidation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about what people had seen or had not seen on the island. A number of people have seen the burnt-out ruins of houses. Intimidation of those who disliked these developments in Anguilla began with the shouting of abuse, and ended with the burning down of their houses. There is no doubt at all that there were and may still be, supplies of arms in the island. It is still one of the tasks of the forces we now have in the island either to take the arms themselves or to make sure


that they have left the island. So far there has been the surrender of a number of rifles, shotguns and ammunition and the discovery of an anti-tank rifle, which is not a weapon which one would normally use for the internal administration of Anguilla.
If right hon. Gentlemen are asserting that the statements repeatedly made by Mr. Webster and by some of his supporters that substantial supplies of arms had been brought to the island were untrue, it is up to them to say on what knowledge they base that assertion. In view of the undoubted cases of arson and—somewhat earlier—of murder on the island, it would have been quite wrong for us to have ignored the repeated reports that there were arms on the island. I say that it is the duty of the forces now there to search for those arms, as they are in fact doing.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Foreign Secretary has spoken now of arson, murder and arms running. Does he not think that it would be right to issue a White Paper setting out the evidence that he has, documentary or otherwise, so that the House can judge the seriousness of what he is saying?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the references to the cases of arson and murder have been public for some time. These were things that it was hoped might during the period of interim settlement have been investigated, but with the progressive breakdown of that settlement it proved impossible to discover who was responsible for these acts. That the acts themselves had occurred was not in dispute. This is the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "A White Paper."] If the House wants longer and more detailed information than can be given in a short debate, I will certainly consider giving it, and in what might be the most appropriate form What I have said so far are facts that have already been stated some time back in the history of this matter.
What should be noticed is that this was an island faced with corrupt tendencies in its administration, backed up by intimidation. This was something which was of very great concern to Caribbean countries. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a great deal easier for him and some of his hon. Friends

to treat this as a Gilbertian joke than it is for the Governments and peoples of the Caribbean who have to live with this kind of problem and who know that if a state of lawlessness were allowed to persist in one island it might extend to others and become a real menace to the Caribbean. This is the real issue to which the right hon. Gentleman paid far too little attention.
In this situation, therefore, it was judged right to deal with the immediate situation by appointing Her Majesty's Commissioner in the island; and further—this was the achievement of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—agreement was obtained to this both from the Government in St. Kitts and from Mr. Webster. My hon. Friend's visit to the island was to install the Commissioner as had been agreed in St. Kitts and as had been agreed by Mr. Webster.
We have the record of what my hon. Friend said at the airport, a record which indicates the loud and cordial enthusiasm with which he was received. There was no doubt that this was and still is the right way to proceed. I believe that it was because it was clear that so many in the island did want it that Mr. Webster, very ill-advisedly, in company with some others created a situation in which my hon. Friend had to choose between either leaving the island or the development of the situation in such a way that there might have been loss of life.
I am certain that in those circumstances my hon. Friend was right to leave. I say this because I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat some of the ill-natured and ill-informed criticism that has been made elsewhere of my hon. Friend, criticism which is wholly rebutted by the facts of what occurred.
We established, therefore, Her Majesty's Commissioner on the island. There was some reference to the troops that we used. The right hon. Gentleman referred to troops advancing with fixed bayonets. I invite the House to consider again what I asked it to consider when I replied to Questions earlier. There had been a situation where by the threat of force and the threat of use of weapons the attempt to install the Commissioner had failed. There were reports, which we had reason to believe, that there was


a good deal of arms. I suppose that we could have sent a much smaller force. We could have run the risk of its smallness encouraging reckless people to use force. In fact we carried out the operation in a way that ensured that there was no loss of life, and there has been nothing but very minor injuries ever since.
I say again that it was right to handle the matter in that way. The Motion alleges "inept handling". This is the usual ploy of Oppositions when they do not want to be put in the position of advocating an alternative policy. They say, "We will not criticise your policy. We will say that we could have handled it better". If the Opposition say that they could have handled the operation better, they oblige me—and for a moment I will be controversial—to ask the House to consider their credentials for the handling of military operations of any size.
Some of us remember the ludicrous expedition to Kuwait, where soldiers were given the famous instruction—"If you get lost, return to your unit". Some of us in a more sombre vein remember the events at Suez where, apart from those killed in battle, hundreds of innocent civilians were drowned. Thank God that nothing remotely resembling that has happened on Anguilla or, I trust, ever will happen. Before we have any more criticisms about "inept handling", let the Tory Party first remove the beam from its own eye.

Mr. Marten: Does not the Secretary of State realise that if he sent a similar quantity of troops to Margate there would be no bloodshed either? The Anguillans are peaceful people just as the people are at Margate. That is why there was no bloodshed.

Mr. Stewart: I have pointed out, and it cannot be denied, that there had been serious acts of violence and lawlessness in the island previously and that there had been the clearest indications that, unless we made it quite clear that the Commissioner would be installed, there might be armed resistance. I hope that the Tory Party will weigh it up. I should like to know whether the Tories in fact say that we should have sent a smaller force. The right hon. Gentleman

was not prepared to be precise on that point. Moreover, if any among the public have formed a mental picture, because they were paratroops, of their descending from the sky on Anguilla, let them please dismiss such pictures from their minds. The paratroops went because, in the ordinary rotation, they were the spearhead battalion of the Strategic Reserve.
Let us look now at the situation in the island itself, since so far none of the criticisms has stood up. It is not true that anyone could have foreseen that the thing would not work. It is not true that we neglected the situation. It is not true that it was unwise to appoint Her Majesty's Commissioner. The Opposition do not seem quite to be able to make up their mind what their criticism is about the show of force to make sure that the Commissioner was installed. Therefore, let us turn to what has actually happened since he was installed.
We now have a magistrate's court functioning. We have the acts of violence and intimidation stopped. The newspaper, which previously had been forcibly suppressed, is working again. We now have people in Anguilla who have different opinions free to express them and, as a recent news item tells us, free, as they ought to be, to organise in support of their opinions. We are beginning to train what the island has so badly needed, a native Anguillan police force.
Meanwhile, the Royal Engineers are getting on with the work of essential repairs to electrical machinery needed for the cottage hospital, improving the island's water supply, establishing Radio Anguilla, the building of a new school, and the surfacing of roads; and not only doing these things themselves but securing the co-operation of the Anguillan people in doing them. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the television. These activities of the Royal Engineers are not as noisy as demonstrations, they do not make such good pictures as an excited crowd at an airport, but they are of a good deal more value and importance—permanent value and importance—to the people of the island, and we shall go ahead with them.
During this period, there came the visits of Lord Caradon to the island, with which also the right hon. Gentleman


made very merry. My right hon. and noble Friend secured an agreement with Mr. Webster, the substance of which was that the island would be administered by Her Majesty's Commissioner in consultation and co-operation with representatives of the people of the island. With that we are fully content, and by that formula we stand. It is true that Mr. Webster shortly after making the agreement repudiated it. But it is also true that he has shown—here, I think, he has followed the path of wisdom—a decision since to work on the lines of that agreement.
If we can have the co-operation of Mr. Webster, it is most welcome. But we could not regard his co-operation as an absolutely necessary condition for the Commissioner to do his work. For the present, the island, as previously agreed by Mr. Webster and as agreed with St. Kitts, must be administered by the Commissioner in consultation. I do not at all accept, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's criticism that Lord Caradon's visits were unnecessary.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I did not say so.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman says that he did not say so, but a whole verse from Gilbert and Sullivan left the House with the impression that that is what he wanted to say.
In looking to the future of the island, I think that deliberately one must not be dogmatic. We have to face two facts: first, that legally Anguilla is part of the associated State as the law now stands; and second, that there is deep objection among the Anguillans to that connection. To resolve this situation there is needed first time and second consultation with our friends in the Caribbean. While in New York I took the opportunity to have two frank and friendly conversations with Mr. Bradshaw. Recently I saw the High Commissioners in this country, and I shall be pursuing consultations with their Governments.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will new legislation be needed?

Mr. Stewart: Whether it will need new legislation will depend on what solution is ultimately reached. That is precisely why I said that I thought it wise not to be dogmatic about it at present. This is

a matter on which we need consultation with the Caribbean.
I have had and no doubt shall have during the rest of the debate a number of suggestions as to how we might face the future. To these I shall listen most gladly. There has, for example, been the suggestion that there ought to be, if not a Minister, someone carrying out, perhaps, the sort of function in the Caribbean which Mr. Malcolm MacDonald carried out in Africa. There are these and other suggestions, and I shall gladly welcome what the House has to say about it.
The particular criticisms voiced by the right hon. Gentleman are not supported by the record of history. What we must go for now is the firm administration of the island and the carrying out of much needed work there for the present and the immediate future, but the longer-term future will call for consultation with our Caribbean friends, on which we are now embarked. It is that approach which the situation requires, not this niggling and partisan Motion, which I ask the House to reject.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate because I was away at the time of the foreign affairs debate, which touched on Anguilla, a month ago, and I am one of the few Members who have visited Anguilla and know the personalities and problems there at first hand. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and I were responsible for the interim settlement in December, 1967, to which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has now, I hope, secured an extension for a further interim period.
I do not usually criticise the Government on Commonwealth and Colonial issues, on which, as I think the House knows, I have always preferred a bipartisan approach. Indeed, I think that have been criticised on one or two occasions from this side for adopting that line on these issues. But I must in honesty say that I do not consider that the Anguillan problem—and I acknowledge that it is a very awkward problem, though a very small one—has been particularly well handled by the Government.
In the light of my own experience, I was a little surprised that it was thought


necessary to deploy the British Navy and the British Army and to mount an invasion in order to resolve the problem. But I want to be fair about it. I acknowledge that the interim settlement made by Lord Caradon is different in one important respect from the interim settlement made by the hon. Member for Northfield and myself. In the arrangements which we made, Mr. Lee was, by his own wish and at his own request, an adviser to the Anguillans. I wanted at that time—and I think that the hon. Member for Northfield did, too—to give him power, but Mr. Lee himself thought that he could do more to influence, to mediate and to conciliate if he merely advised.
Under the new arrangements, however, the administrator, Mr. Cumber, has real power. I acknowledge that that is a difference. It may be that he would not have been accorded that power by the Anguillans if we had not first occupied the island. I do not know, and I leave that question entirely open.
The fact remains that the whole incident made Britain look ridiculous. I was in New York at the time, and it distressed me to find that we were a laughing stock in the United States, where the operation was regarded as pathetic and absurd. I believe that Lord Caradon, with his knowledge of the Caribbean, his prestige there, and his diplomatic experience, should have been invited to try his hand before instead of after the use of force, and without resorting to it.
May I return to the interim solution which the hon. Member for Northfield and I secured in 1967. I have never had the opportunity of reporting on this to the House. On a small scale, it was quite a difficult negotiation, because neither side would meet the other, and we had frequently to go to and from Anguilla and St. Kitts to get agreement. It was always clear—I acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said—that Anguilla would not willingly return to association with St. Kitts. It was equally clear that Britain was bound by our signature to the Associated States Agreement, and that Mr. Bradshaw was therefore legally completely in the right.
A long-term solution was therefore very difficult to achieve, and the hon.

Gentleman and I were not invited to attempt one. Our task was to negotiate the installation of a British official who would hold the ring, so to speak; and buy time for Her Majesty's Government while a permanent solution could be devised. It was not very easy to achieve even what we did, because the distrust on both sides was very great. It took us nearly three weeks, working about 18 hours a day, to get an agreement.
I direct my next observation particularly to the Under-Secretary of State. In any Commonwealth negotiation one must allow plenty of time, have plenty of patience, and work very hard for success. I learnt that when I worked for my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), and no one worked harder than he did. This is particularly true of the Caribbean, because the West Indians love to talk and to argue.

Mr. Eric Ogden: So do we.

Mr. Fisher: Of course, but West Indians in particular do.
One must also have a sense of humour, because they have, and one can often avoid a crisis by humour and good humour. What is quite fatal is to arrive with a cut-and-dried inflexible plan made in London. What is even worse is to read out one's plan to the public, without any prior negotiation when one arrives at the airport initially and to say in effect, "Take it or leave it". One can never get agreement with West Indians if one adopts that sort of approach, yet that is exactly what the Under-Secretary of State did, and that is the burden of my complaint. From that initial mistake much else flowed.
It would have been wiser to begin as the hon. Gentleman and I began. I told the crowd at the airport—the same crowd welcomed us as welcomed the Under-Secretary—that we had come to look, to listen, and to learn. And for three days we did exactly that. We toured the Island and listened to the views and complaints of the people. When we had got to know the leaders quite well personally and had the feel of the place, we began, very tentatively, to put forward our proposals.
I acknowledge that the Anguillans are not at all easy people to negotiate with, because, perhaps through lack of political experience, they are not politically very sophisticated. Mr. Webster is honest but not very articulate, deeply religious but rather obstinate, an ardent patriot for Anguilla but not a very self-confident leader of his own people. He was nervous of leadership and wanted always to carry his followers and the people with him at every stage of the negotiations. He had no idea of negotiating privately, and even when agreement was reached we had to obtain all the signatures from all the leading people all over the Island of Anguilla ourselves. We also had to announce at a great public meeting the solution that had been agreed. It was rather embarrassing that we should have had to do that, but we did it because Mr. Webster was unwilling to do it himself until he saw that the agreement was acceptable to the people. Therefore, with great respect to Mr. Webster, he lacks the quality of leadership.
By comparison, Mr. Bradshaw was infinitely more co-operative, because he is a realist and an experienced politician, both as Finance Minister of the old West Indies Federation and the Premier of St. Kitts for many years.
In his speech on 24th March, my noble Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) was much less than fair to Mr. Bradshaw. He was also rather less than fair to the hon. Member for Northfield and myself. He said that we had got our settlement because it was based on false hopes and false premises in both islands. That is totally untrue. Each side saw the document that the other was signing, and to each was explained exactly what had been agreed with the other. No one was misled in any way about the interim solution; and no attempt was made to negotiate a final solution, because that was quite outside our terms of reference

Viscount Lambton: My hon. Friend said that politicians in the West Indies are unsophisticated. I think that that is the case, but, with all respect, I stand by what I said earlier, that the settlement was reached because both sides believed after my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman had been there that they would get what they wanted. Anguilla believed

that it would be independent, and St. Kitts believed that Anguilla would be returned to it at the end of the year. I can only repeat that I believe that that was one of the prime causes of the extreme dissatisfaction in Anguilla this year.

Mr. Fisher: It may be that there was wishful thinking in both Islands, and naturally people always hope that a thing will work out in the end in the way that will suit them. But I assure my noble Friend that this was not the impression given. We were meticulously careful—and the hon. Gentleman will confirm this—to be absolutely honest with both sides at every stage. I stand by that.
That is the background—an interim settlement for one year. During that year, before the arrangements were to expire, the British Government were to negotiate a final solution. It is a serious criticism that in fact 10 months of the year that we had bought were allowed to pass before any attempt was made to negotiate anything. Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Webster came to London last October. No final settlement was reached. I do not blame the Government for that. It was very difficult. But I do blame them for not even negotiating an extension of the interim solution, which was not very difficult.
Instead, the conference was entirely abortive, and Mr. Webster went back to Anguilla and declared his little U.D.I. Later, the Under-Secretary of State visited Anguilla very briefly—I believe for only a few hours. I hope that he will not think that I am being unfriendly when I say that it was an unsuccessful and a rather humiliating visit. I do not believe that the Anguillans would have shot a Minister of the Crown, or that there was any danger of bloodshed, or any truth whatever in the theory that the Mafia or people like that had taken over the island. That would be entirely out of character.
The one thing of which the Anguillans were terrified when we were there was exploitation of their island by American speculators. Every American who arrived was very carefully checked on, and anyone undesirable was at once asked to leave. The only American would-be property developer on the


island at the time of the Under-Secretary's visit was, as far as I know, Mr. Holcombe. I was able to check his record when I was in the United States and the Bahamas last month. It is not spotless, but it is not a very bad record. No doubt he wanted to make money on and out of Anguilla by land development. But he was not a criminal, and he had nothing to do with the Mafia. It was certainly not necessary to import British troops in order to export Mr. Holcomb.
It is probably true that Mr. Webster has been influenced in recent months by some of the less moderate of his Anguillan advisers. It would be much wiser for him to listen to the advice of Mr. Emil Gumbs and Mr. Harrigan than to that of Mr. Jeremiah Gumbs and Mr. Wallace Rey. But surely it would have been right to try for an extension of the interim solution by ordinary diplomatic means instead of using force before even attempting any serious negotiations. I do not call it a serious negotiation to arrive at an airport and to read out a cut-and-dried plan.
What about the future? The Government have a chance of another bite at this difficult cherry. I hope—I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to this in his speech—that the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean will also play their part, as they certainly should. It was a little irresponsible of them to opt out just because this is a "hot potato". This is, after all, a Caribbean problem, involving the possibility of further fragmentation of the Caribbean, and the independent countries of the Caribbean should certainly help in its solution—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Up to now it seems that he has suggested that the Anguillans are naïve, to say the least, and liable to change their minds very considerably, and that the other Caribbean Governments should have helped. What he has not touched on is any serious ineptitude by Her Majesty's Government. Is he not saying that some Americans think that the Government were inept and that the Opposition are charging them with the American version rather than with their own?

Mr. Fisher: That was a pointless intervention. I cannot make my speech again. I have made several charges, which the hon. Member would have heard if he had listened, about the ineptitude of the handling of this situation by Ministers of the Crown in this Government. I do not propose to repeat them if the hon. Gentleman did not hear them the first time.
As I said, the independent countries should help in this solution, because the last thing that any of us wants is further fragmentation in the Caribbean. I am against fragmentation, whether in the Caribbean or in Africa, and it is rather unrealistic to imagine that a tiny island, 14 miles by two, with no resources except remittances, and only 6,000 people, can possibly sustain independence and the expense of international representation in the modern world. It is absurd. Therefore, if the people of Anguilla will not return to St. Kitts, the Government must try to negotiate—that is all that they can do—with St. Kitts the terms of an Anguillan secession, and then must see with which other Caribbean unit Anguilla could be federated—perhaps with the British Virgin Islands or with the Dutch Island of St. Martin.

Viscount Lambton: Does my hon. Friend think that it is now possible that Anguilla can return under the authority of St. Kitts?

Mr. Fisher: No, I do not. Hon. Members do not seem to be listening very attentively. I did not suggest that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. May I remind hon. Members of the shortness of this debate and the consequent need to keep speeches short so as to get in as many hon. Members as possible?

Mr. Fisher: I had not suggested that they should return to St. Kitts but that we should negotiate some way out of that problem and then, possibly consider attaching Anguilla to some other unit in the Caribbean.
Whatever the solution, Anguilla is a financial liability, not an asset, and Britain will have to pay. It is not just Mr. Bradshaw who should be blamed for the lack of development in Anguilla. It has been his responsibility for a few years; it has been Britain's responsibility


for many generations. There is no electric light on the island, no telephones, no proper roads, not enough schools and inadequate water supplies. That is not a proud legacy to leave to the Anguillans and it is mainly the fault of successive British Governments of all parties.
What, in view of the Anguillan experience, is the future of the Associated States? This is very important for the future. I acknowledge some personal responsibility for this idea, because, when it became apparent that the Eastern Caribbean would not federate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham asked me and the officials in the old Colonial Office to consider the future of the remaining small British territories which could not sustain or did not want independence.
We tentatively worked out the Associated State idea, which was later adopted and implemented by our successors. Perhaps that was, in retrospect—the hon. Member for Northfield criticised it at the time—not a very good idea. It leaves us, after all, with some residual responsibility but no residual power. For it to work, we should, no doubt, have kept ultimate strategic control of internal security; but, if we keep that, we retain colonial status, because external affairs, defence and the ultimate strategic control of internal security is precisely the status of Colonies such as British Honduras and the Bahamas. Therefore, there may be no half-way house—either a territory is a Colony, with internal self-government, or it is independent.
What I am sure would be wrong, after Anguilla, is to leave the Associated States exactly as they are. The same sort of thing could happen again—in Barbuda, the Grenadines or elsewhere. We cannot go around the Caribbean with frigates, marines, police and paratroops whenever there is internal dissension in any part of the area. We should call a Carribbean conference or set up a Carribbean commission to discuss, first of all, Anguilla and, perhaps, later, if that goes well, the whole concept of the Associated States and their future. Britain should play a part in this, but the independent countries of the Caribbean should play a part, too, and should accept their responsibilities.
Whether we do that or not—I hope that we shall—there is one other immediate and constructive action which we can take on our own and on which the Foreign Secretary himself, I was glad to hear, just touched. The Government could appoint someone with diplomatic and political experience as Britain's special representative in the Caribbean, a sort of "mini-Malcolm Macdonald", if I may be allowed to put it in that way. It should be someone, at any rate, who can talk to the island leaders, not as a civil servant but as a fellow politician, someone who can anticipate trouble and put it right before, instead of after, the event. We hope that Lord Caradon has put it right now, but that was after the event and not before. If he had been in the area before, this might never have happened. There has been a real need for this sort of appointment for some time. Anguilla spotlights the need and I hope that the Government will respond to it.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Evan Luard: Wisdom after the event is one of the normal elements of political life. Oppositions, after all, as one of their main functions, have to say that they could have handled any situation better than the Government and that they were well aware in advance of all the difficulties which might arise. But we have rarely seen such a remarkable example of posterior sagacity as has been shown on this occasion, not merely by members of the Opposition, but by many sections of the Press. Many people or organs have suggested that they knew all the time about all the difficulties which would arise over Anguilla, that they had warned in advance about them and that the Government had shown great ineptitude in not themselves having been aware of this.
But the facts of the case are very much the reverse. Anyone who has had any close knowledge or experience of this affair over the last two years will realise that almost throughout, from shortly after associated statehood was given, the Government have been engaged almost continuously in trying to find a way out of the very serious difficulties in Anguilla, while the Opposition, with one or two notable exceptions I admit, have almost totally ignored this situation throughout


this period. That I will refer to again in detail—

Sir John Rodgers: Surely, if the hon. Gentleman read HANSARD he would find that in the last three years debates have been initiated from this side of the House drawing attention to the exact state of affairs which now exists.

Mr. Luard: I said that I was going to refer in detail to this matter and also to how much this was raised in the House. I recognise that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) and his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) have consistently raised this point. I am concerned particularly with the attitude of the Official Opposition and I will give a certain number of facts and figures.
Three main accusations have been made against the Government. The first is that the Associated State was associated in this form: that Anguilla was associated at all with St. Kitts and Nevis. Here one has merely to turn to the debate about associated statehood on the West Indies Act in early 1967. The fact is that not one word of objection was raised by any Opposition speaker, including the Front Bench speaker, during that debate to the fact that Anguilla was to be associated with St. Kitts and Nevis. If there were any time at which it was essential to raise precisely those doubts, it was surely during that debate. And there was practically no comment during those few months, even from individual Opposition hon. Members on this subject. It was true that shortly after associated statehood was brought about there were serious difficulties and outbreaks of rioting.

Mr. Marten: rose—

Mr. Luard: I have already excepted the hon. Member for Banbury from everything I say. I recognise that he personally was very active about this matter. I am speaking of the Opposition as a whole. He was the only one who was consistently active in this connection.
From that moment, the Government themselves were constantly engaged in seeking ways to alleviate the situation and to conciliate between Anguilla and St.

Kitts. But from the moment of the second serious disturbances in July, 1967, there was very little discussion of this matter either in the House or in the Press as a whole. I have done some research into this matter and I have found that between July, 1967, and December, 1968, when the interim agreement broke down, only 14 Parliamentary Questions were asked, of which more than half were asked by the hon. Member for Banbury. But the Official Opposition spokesmen did not once open their mouths on this subject, and it cannot therefore be said that they were buisly alerting the House to the dangers likely to arise.
That is equally true, I regret to say, of much of the Press. The Times has recently indulged in great sermons about the inactivity of the Government during this time. I have undertaken a certain amount of research on this subject and I have found four news items in The Times on the subject of Anguilla throughout the whole of 1968. It cannot be said that the Press either was particularly busy in pointing to the dangers about to arise.
On the other hand, the Government were actively involved. The right hon Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) mentioned the visit of his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) as though it was an inspiration of their own to try to sort out this difficult problem. But their visit was made at the express invitation of the Government because of the very difficulties then arising.
The visit was not criticised at the time. In fact, there were warm welcomes from the Opposition benches for the agreement at which those two hon. Members arrived. It was the obvious kind of interim agreement, a compromise agreement, to try to reach, but it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Surbiton has pointed out in his wise speech, that to some extent it was misinterpreted, or interpreted ambiguously, by the two main protagonists. It is often the way when a compromise is suggested that it will seem to both parties to represent something quite different from what it seems to the outside world to represent.
This has been shown in the difficulties which arose at the time of the expiry of the agreement and immediately before the expiry. But it cannot be said that the Government were not aware of the problems likely to arise and were not seeking, as hard as they could during that period first to extend the agreement and then to provide some substitute agreement.
The second of the main criticisms which has been made against the Government is that of neglect of Anguilla, either over many years, or over the last year or two. It cannot be denied that Anguilla has been shamefully neglected economically, but this has been the neglect of successive British Governments over a period of 200 or 300 years. If one is looking about as to who should carry the main responsibility for this neglect, it must go to those parties who were most often the Government during that period. In fact, in the most recent period, the responsibility is not so grave as at some previous periods. But if neglect is taken to mean neglect over the last two or three years, it is a charge which cannot be sustained. I have already shown the amount of interest being taken in the situation in Anguilla generally during this period by the Government and their various attempts to try to resolve the difficulties.
The basic elements of the situation are such as to make any solution extremely difficult and I wish to refer to some of the many alternatives which are often somewhat airily ventilated. Mention has already been made today of the idea that as an alternative Anguilla should be associated with the British Virgin Islands. This idea has been frequently mentioned in the Press as though it were a simple solution as an alternative to the present.
Most of those who advocate this alternative seem to have neglected to ask what the people of the British Virgin Islands think of this proposal. Some of us recently had the opportunity to meet a Member of Parliament from the British Virgin Islands in a delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought of this solution. He was completely categorical that such a solution would be totally unacceptable to the British Virgin Islands, for much the same kind of reasons advanced for other associations of that kind. He expressed

in particular his great distrust for Mr. Webster personally.
When I pressed him further and asked him whether he thought that this was the only possible satisfactory solution of the problem of Anguilla, the most he would concede was that it might be possible, provided and provided only that full control of the joint Associated State rested in the hands of the representative of the British Virgin Islands. This symbolises the difficulties which one confronts in the Caribbean with a situation of this kind. There are intense suspicions, particularly of personalities among the Caribbean islands. Perhaps we as a people must bear some responsibility for this, but there is not sufficient mutual knowledge among the islands of the Caribbean to make the idea of close association often acceptable to them.
Somewhat similar arguments apply to the idea of association with St. Martin. When one thinks of the difficulties which in practice have already been experienced in the attempt to encourage association among English-speaking islands, subject to a common tradition under the British colonial system, one appreciates the infinitely greater difficulties which would arise in trying to encourage association between Anguilla and St. Martin which admittedly, from a purely geographical point of view, is the obvious associated State. It would be extremely difficult in practice to bring about the kind of association that would provide a viable administrative structure for either of these two islands.
It is therefore not so easy to think of other alternatives in the Caribbean region as some have suggested. One must recognise that the choice is between re-association with St. Kitts, which is probably now impossible, and some kind of isolated status of Anguilla in some new relationship with either this country, or some regional grouping in the Caribbean.
I turn to the third of the main criticisms made both in the House and in the Press of the Government's handling of the situation over the last three or four months since the interim agreement broke down. I share some of the doubts about the decision to send troops to Anguilla, although I think that it is difficult for anybody who does not have close knowledge of the conditions in the island at the time to reach a firm decision.
My own opinion is somewhat similar to that of the hon. Member for Surbiton. I would have thought that it should have been possible to make further attempts at peaceful contacts with the people of Anguilla. As I said at the time, I should have preferred the Government to call a conference of Caribbean Governments generally, including the Government of St. Kitts and representatives from Anguilla, before any attempt to use force was considered.
Having said that, I must point out one fact which seems to have been almost totally ignored by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is that, whatever one thinks of the way in which the intervention was handled, its final outcome has been to provide for Anguilla almost everything that it demanded.
The real difficulty for us in handling the situation in the first place was that the internal relationship between Anguilla and St. Kitts was an affair internal to the Associated State, in which we had no legal right to intervene. That situation was altered fundamentally by the unilateral declaration of independence by Anguilla two or three months ago. That in itself provided sufficient justification for intervention from this country. Indeed I think that it would have provided a better justification than the one mainly used by the Government, namely, the involvement of external elements in the administration of Anguilla.
The unilateral declaration of independence had an immediate effect on the external relations of the Associated State of St. Kitts as a whole. Supposing, for example, Anguilla had tried to obtain official diplomatic recognition from other States. Supposing it had tried to obtain membership of international organisations. Such steps would immediately have affected the external relations of St. Kitts, and it was automatically a matter of the kind laid down in the West Indies Act under which we were entitled to intervene. That does not in itself mean that we were wise to intervene by force, but it gave us the legal justification, the existence of which was doubted so widely in the Press when the intervention took place.
If we had done nothing, one of three things might have happened. Mr.

Bradshaw might have attempted to reassert his authority over Anguilla by force or by some other means with assistance from elsewhere. That, surely, would have been the worst possible outcome, because it would have revived the difficulties with which we had always been faced. That then was the least likely of the three possibilities.
The second possibility was that Anguilla might have continued in total isolation, in increasing economic misery, in a status which had no international recognition and which would have been a source of continuing doubt and worry among Caribbean Governments generally.
The third possibility was that Anguilla might remain independent but become increasingly under the influence of various external elements—commercial, possibly criminal and possibly corrupt. That again is an outcome which Caribbean Governments would have widely feared and one which would have left a totally unsatisfactory situation in the Caribbean.
It seems to me, therefore, that all three of the principal accusations raised against the Government in this House and in the Press fall down, and no satisfactory alternative to the actions taken by the Government has been suggested.
Like other hon. Members, I want to say a few words about the future and the way in which I hope that the Government will seek to handle the matter over the coming months and possibly years.
First, I want to re-emphasise a point which has been made already by the hon. Member for Surbiton, and that is the importance of trying to confront this problem in a Caribbean setting. Clearly it is primarily a Caribbean problem. It is a matter which cannot be handled without consultation with and the closest co-operation of other Caribbean Governments. I know that Her Majesty's Government have been seeking that co-operation and have been in close consultation with them. But my point is that, whatever future status is decided on, not only for Anguilla but for other small territories in the region such as the Virgin Islands or any other territory such as Barbuda which may finally wish to secede from its present Associated State, some kind of international status will be


required. That status will be more satisfactory if it has some kind of regional blessing and permanent regional political connection than a direct colonial relationship with this country.
I endorse the suggestion that there should be some permanent British representative in the Caribbean area, and I believe that there should be some permanent council of the Caribbean meeting regularly and perhaps almost on a permanent basis, which can take responsibility for small territories of this kind in the Caribbean area.
I also urge upon the Government the desirability of taking the United Nations into their confidence to the greatest possible extent in the arrangements which they make for territories of this kind. That does not apply only in the Caribbean area but to colonial territories of almost all kinds. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary knows, I am afraid that one of the reasons why we experience difficulty in the United Nations on colonial matters is that, on the whole, we have not so far made much attempt to take the United Nations into our confidence. In according a status very similar to associated statehood to the Cook Islands, New Zealand brought in the United Nations and had a United Nations observer mission there before independence. That has done much to improve the standing of New Zealand in the United Nations and has won good will for its policies in the United Nations.
So far, the British Government have always refused to accept United Nations observer missions in any colonial territories. If we were prepared to do this, perhaps in a quite small territory immediately before independence, we would win enormously in terms of good will in the United Nations. I am not suggesting that the United Nations can take on administrative responsibilities in these islands, but it can in some sense endorse the final status which is agreed.
The United Nations is engaged in a study of the status of very small territories. It is a problem which arises in many parts of the world for many different colonial powers, and it is one of great concern to the United Nations because of its interest in de-colonisation, and in the final sovereign status of different nations, for example, whether they

should qualify for membership of the United Nations. As the largest remaining colonial Power, we would gain in many ways if we were prepared to consult more fully with the United Nations on matters of this kind and, in the case of Anguilla and the Caribbean, we could win by involving the United Nations in the consultations which have been described.
But I want to reaffirm what I said earlier. Whatever criticisms may be made of one or two small detailed elements of the handling of the situation, the Opposition have failed totally to make out a case for the Government's general ineptitude. They have failed to offer any convincing alternative policies. They have failed to answer the fact that, in the present situation Anguilla is far closer to reaching its objectives than ever before. For the moment, it has acquired separation from St. Kitts. It is acquiring now considerable development assistance from this country. In addition, it is acquiring a recognised international status which it could not have had if it had been allowed to continue with the unilateral declaration of independence which provoked the action.

5.28 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: I can understand why the Foreign Secretary was a little sensitive about the situation in Anguilla being described as Gilbertian. I thought that the quotations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) were extremely apt and very much to the point. In many ways, it is a Gilbertian situation.
In his closing words, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) said that we have to go through all this rigmarole to give the aid that we should have given without the presence of paratroops, police and the like. In my view, that underlines the Gilbertian situation which has arisen over this tiny island in the Caribbean. If we were to send to a stranger a complete record of all that has happened since the creation of the Associated State, he would think that he had been given a hitherto undiscovered manuscript of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. However, the tragedy is that there is no music and very little humour in the situation. It has become a tragic farce.
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is aware of the opinions that have been


expressed not only in cartoons but in the columns of magazines and newspapers of the new world, particularly the United States, about sending in paratroops. I think that our status has been lowered—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: Surely the hon. Gentleman pointed out how much better our record is than that of the Americans.

Sir J. Rodgers: I think that I have travelled more than the hon. Gentleman since this invasion and I assure him that this has not done our prestige any good.

Mr. Roebuck: I was only suggesting that if the Americans want to put their record in military achievements against the record of this country, we have a pretty good answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman thinks so, too.

Sir J. Rodgers: I should be going outside the scope of the debate if I were to follow the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him on some points. I was making the factual point about the reaction overseas to the Anguillan situation.
We should remind ourselves that it is not so long ago since Anguilla was begging to remain a British Colony. Anguilla was as patriotic as any we could find in the British Commonwealth. Where other places were demanding independence, Anguilla was pleading to remain a Colony and to be administered from this country. It seems odd that within a year or two of taking that attitude we should be regarding the Anguillans as vicious people perpetrating arson, murder, intimidation and the like, which demand the presence of British troops and policemen.
After the tragic break and attempt at federation in the Caribbean, my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) should not be condemned for thinking up the idea of associated statehood. Many on this side were worried about it, as I am sure were many hon. Gentlemen opposite. Nevertheless, we did not come up with any better solution. Therefore, we were in favour of a trial of this sort of grouping of smaller islands together to see if they could work out some solution to their own problems.
With hindsight, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton is right. It is now proved that holding the power

of preventing external aggression and representing Anguilla at the United Nations and other diplomatic posts throughout the world, but having no control over their internal affairs, is an unworkable situation. I think we are acting ultra vires in that respect.

Mr. Marten: There have been suggestions that this side of the House did not make any objections to the associated status. I should like to get on record that, after Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and I went to see the Minister of State at the then Commonwealth and Colonial Office, now the Paymaster-General, and put forward our suggestions to her.

Sir J. Rodgers: I also saw Lord Shepherd on several occasions, and I have raised debates on this matter over the last two or three years. Even though we are worried about the associated statehood, none of us would have approved it if we had thought that a situation could arise where we literally force one island—in this case a much smaller island than the others—into becoming such an Associated State.
From the outset Mr. Webster has said that they were afraid of Mr. Bradshaw, that they did not wish to be associated with St. Kitts, and that they did not accept it as a solution. I have met Mr. Webster several times over the years. I know Mr. Bradshaw, too. I think it was never on the cards that the lion, in the shape of Mr. Bradshaw of St. Kitts, and the lamb, in the shape of Mr. Webster, would lie down together.
Long before this situation arose, Mr. Webster was repeatedly asking whether Anguilla could remain a Colony, or, failing that, that it might associate with the Virgin Islands, and, if not, could it leave the British Commonwealth altogether and be an associated island of the French or the Dutch Islands. He was seeking a peaceful solution then.
I admit that there are difficulties about association. I think that the hon. Member for Oxford is right. The more one thinks about it the more difficult it is to place a small island like Anguilla in any form of association, whatever the nation or conditions. But that is no reason for forcing it into association with St. Kitts.
Then came the Parliamentary Mission. I am sure that the House and the country is in a sense indebted to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton for bringing about an interim solution and gaining a year's grace. Equally, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) was right when he said, at the end of the mission, that both countries believed something different if they behaved patiently for a year. Mr. Bradshaw believed that the Anguillans would be forced back into associated statehood, whereas Mr. Webster was convinced that all he had to do was to accept this mandate for a year and, at the end of that year, he would be given some sort of independence or some new status which would relieve him of Mr. Bradshaw and the Government of St. Kitts.
These things happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said, it was perhaps naive politicians who brought it about. This is no reflection on my two hon. Friends, but, in the end, this was a residual fact.
There was also the knowledge on Anguilla that Lord Shepherd had suggested at one moment that troops from various Caribbean islands should be carried in a British frigate and land on Anguilla. This cannot have improved the relations between Anguilla and this country. The fact that Jamaica refused to play ball is a different matter. This was not referred to by the Foreign Secretary, but this worsened relations between us.
Then came what can only be described as the disastrous visit of the Under-Secretary. I am told by people who were there at the time that the Under-Secretary refused to shake hands with Mr. Webster. Mr. Webster had dressed himself in the appropriate clothes to receive a British Minister, including white gloves. He held out his hand, and the Under-Secretary refused to shake hands in front of the Anguillan people. It may be right or wrong. If it is wrong let us have a denial. If it is right, it was an error of judgment and an insult to these friendly people who like these gestures and had gone out of their way to make a gesture by dressing up and wearing white gloves.
The flight of the Under-Secretary was ignominious. I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of cowardice, but it was an error of judgment of a major kind. He should have sat down and talked to them. They are a friendly people. I am sure that there would not have been any attempt on his life. He failed lamentably to live up to the traditions of his office.
I now come to the question that I should like to address to the Foreign Secretary. Today the right hon. Gentleman made allegations about the Mafia and undesirable characters who had taken over the island. He has repeatedly been asked what evidence he had. The Foreign Secretary said that he would publish a White Paper. I hope that he will, because nobody has yet given us any evidence of a Mafia-type take-over.
I have heard it said by people living in the Caribbean that the whole thing was started by a journalist who got his facts mixed, who was really speaking about Monserrat at the time, not Anguilla, and that the Commonwealth Office accepted it thinking that it was happening in Anguilla. That is probably the reason why we have not been able to find the cache of arms that was talked about or the men who make up the Mafia. I should not rely on the presence of the Mafia as the absolute truth. If it is not, perhaps the Foreign Secretary will tell us something about it.
Even if it was true, were we justified in landing troops? Even if there had been Mafia and arms, are we legally entitled to be there? Our only rights are to resist external aggression and to represent them. We have no right to take part in their internal arrangements for their own protection. I believe that we were wrong to land troops. It would be helpful if the Foreign Secretary could say against what external aggression we are protecting the Anguillans to justify the continued presence of these troops.
Then followed the statement of the Foreign Secretary that it was no part of Her Majesty's Government's policy to force Anguilla to remain part of an administration of which it did not approve. But what power have we to say that either? We have given them associated statehood. Have we any right to give Anguilla freedom? My right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire asked what it involved. Does


it mean that we have to get Mr. Bradshaw's permission first and introduce legislation in St. Kitts and then come back and introduce further legislation here? What is the machinery by which we can exercise this so-called power? I do not believe that the Government have given sufficient thought to that. I cannot see Mr. Bradshaw ever giving permission for the island to break away.
Why was Mr. Lee appointed as the Commissioner? One reads daily in the newspapers about diplomatic personnel being retired early to allow for promotions from the lower ranks. Why did we use a diplomatic mercenary for this delicate task? Were there not trained established officers in the service available for this job? Did the Government have to appoint a man who had existed for years on temporary assignments? It was an extraordinary appointment, in what was a most delicate operation. It was obviously wrong, otherwise Mr. Lee would not have had to be removed and a permanent civil servant installed in his place to carry on the job. The matters which I have outlined highlight the ineptitude, the ignorance, and the bungling of the Government in this matter.
What can we do now? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be interested in hearing suggestions. First, I suppose it is possible to call together representatives of the three islands to see whether they will privately agree to some new arrangement, but this would not get over the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford. Even if they agreed to let Anguilla legally leave the Associated State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla, what would we do with Anguilla?
If we do not act quickly—and speed is of the essence—there is a danger that we shall damage, not just these islands but the economy of the Caribbean area as a whole. We shall run the danger of splitting the Caribbean, because certain territories there back Mr. Bradshaw, while others tend to side with Mr. Webster. This is bad for the Caribbean and therefore the sooner a solution is found the better it will be.
The Associated State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla cannot remain as it is. That is agreed on both sides of the House. I think that Mr. Bradshaw has acted a little

vindictively against the Anguillans. He has not allocated the amount of money that was allowed for the island, and it is a paradox that it has taken the presence of paratroops and policemen to get to this island the aid that it has wanted for many generations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton said that we cannot blame the present Administration because the situation in Anguilla is the result of neglect over hundreds of years. This island has no roads, no telegraphic communications, inadequate schools, hospitals, and so on, and it is a dreadful story. Nevertheless, Mr. Webster is not the gangster that he has been represented to be. I know him. He is a simple, honest, Bible-reading, if somewhat obstinate, man who does not always listen to the other side of the argument.
I do not wish to see the United Nations being asked to find a solution to this problem. I can think of nothing weaker than for the Government to hand this issue on a plate to the United Nations.

Mr. Luard: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Interventions prolong speeches, and I ask for the co-operation of hon. Members to keeping their speeches short. There are still a number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate.

Sir J. Rodgers: One of the weakest sides of the Government is that when it suits their book, as over Rhodesia, they back the United Nations, but when it does not suit their book, as over Gibraltar, they tend to sweep the United Nations aside. I believe that this is a British responsibility, and that it is for Britain alone to settle this problem. I agree that we should keep the United Nations informed, but this is a British responsibility, and it is the Government who must decide the issue.

Mr. Luard: rose—

Sir J. Rodgers: Very well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) giving way, or has he concluded his speech?

Sir J. Rodgers: I was about to conclude it, but I give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Luard: I was not suggesting that we should ask the United Nations to impose a solution. I suggested that we should keep the United Nations in our confidence over matters of this kind, and that by co-operating with them we would get more co-operation from them.

Sir J. Rodgers: I do not disagree with that.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the questions that I have posed about the basis of the legality of our presence on this island, why he appointed Mr. Lee, and so on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are many hon. Members still waiting to take part in the debate.

Sir J. Rodgers: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have the courage to tell the Anguillans now that whatever solution may eventually be found they will on no account go back to the St. Kitt's—Nevis state, and that some special arrangements will be made to suit their own desires.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: I shall be very brief, but there are half a dozen things that I want to say.
I do not disagree in essence with anything said by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) except about the landing of troops. I do not propose to go over the history and what the interim mission was trying to do. I think that the hon. Gentleman spoke for us both on this matter, and I do not want to repeat it; but there are still a number of points that need to be made.
First, was it ever the case that we should have known from the start—this was the point made by the right hon Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)—that the Anguillans would never stay with St. Kitts? It is monstrous to say that we should have known. Mr. Peter Adams, then the Anguillan representative in the St. Kitts Legislature, held a meeting in St. Kitts before he came to London to sign the associated status Statute, to tell people what he was going to do, and what was proposed. There was at that meeting no dissent to associated statehood. Indeed, very few people turned up at the meeting.

Nobody here can say that we should have known. The fact is that political sophisication and political birth came to this island only after statehood. That was when the trouble arose. Nobody could have foreseen it in the facile way hinted at by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire.
There is always talk about Anguilla being a poor little island and terribly neglected. A lot of this is just not true. The Anguillans live in nice concrete houses, for the most part with individual septic pits, and they are in that sense a sight better off than most of the residents of St. Kitts which is a sugar estate island, where there is real abject poverty, and where there are many terrible schools. Those who talk about Anguilla should visit St. Kitts. The trouble in Anguilla is that the people there have individually a higher standard of living than the people on St. Kitts, but do not have the infrastructure. They do not have the roads, the telephones, and all the other things that one finds in a modern community.
Secondly, because they are not a black sugar island accustomed to this sort of thing, their expectations are much higher. They are people whose horizons are to the north, to the lush American Virgin Islands, to tourism, to easy living, and to Eton and Slough. They mainly migrate to these areas at a period of their lives and do very well and send their remittances back. Their expectations are higher than those of the average Kittitian. That is why they grumble more, and it also explains why they hate St. Kitts. Let us not parade the story about them being terribly poor and neglected. They have higher expectations, based on a pattern different from that of the average daily life in St. Kitts. That is the trouble, but that is a Caribbean problem generally. The problem of expectations is the problem of the Caribbean.
I disagree with what the hon. Member for Surbiton said about the landing of troops. I do not think that my right hon. Friend could have done anything else. Once we had reached the unhappy situation of the open appearance of arms on the island in the way that greeted my hon. Friend, and the subsequent breakdown, my right hon. Friend could do nothing else than put into effect Operation Overkill. He had to send in as many


troops as he could, within reason, so that there would be no bloodshed. If he had not done so there might have been bloodshed. He had to send these troops in in these numbers to do the job properly. He probably saved lives by doing so. It was a difficult and horrible decision, but it was obviously the correct one.
There is no doubt about the arms on Anguilla. It is no good the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire saying otherwise. At one point in our mission, on returning by aircraft from St. Kitts, the hon. Member for Surbiton and I were surrounded by men when we landed. We did not know it at the time but we were told afterwards that everyone was armed. Why? Because they were afraid that when we returned from St. Kitts we would bring with us St. Kitts policemen, and they were ready to shoot them. Do not let us kid ourselves about arms; they are there. We hoped that the interim settlement would allow things to calm down and that the arms would never be used and would finally be jettisoned. That was our only hope. But once matters had reached the point of being ugly my right hon. Friend could not do anything else than he did.
Why was there a breakdown in the interim settlement? Everybody seems to be avoiding mention of the fact that the interim settlement was not just for one year. On this I had one small difference with the hon. Member for Surbiton. I always envisaged, differently from him, that the interim settlement would go on for two, three or more years. I said so time and again during our mission. It is like situations involving a United Nations peacekeeping force: everybody would rather have that than the compromises and loss of face involved in a final settlement. It is always the case in the world's trouble spots that it is easier to maintain the status quo where nobody has to give away anything than to face the difficulties of compromises in a real settlement.
I always envisaged the interim settlement needing to be renewed at the end of a year. Indeed, the Letters of Intent on which the settlement was based provide for the renewal of the interim settlement. Why was it not renewed? In

this respect I express my only criticism of my right hon. Friend's Department. When Mr. Webster came here last October and I met him, as did other hon. Members, I knew that he would not renew the interim settlement. Why? Because he said, "The very things that you, Mr. Chapman, left behind to be settled during that year have not been settled. We are getting nowhere on many issues that matter to us".
Those issues were the release of Post Office savings held in St. Kitts—the finding of some means to compensate people who, in the shemozzle, had lost their pass books for Post Office savings; the problems of the pensions of civil servants in Anguilla—money had never been sent from St. Kitts to pay them; magisterial arrangements, and the problem of land sales. No land sales can legally take place without the approval of St. Kitts, and that is being withheld.
There are half a dozen main issues on which there should have been progress in the 12 months and which, I am afraid, were not properly chased up by the Commonwealth Office in that period. It may have been due to a change of Ministers. As the hon. Member for Surbiton knows, I personally initiated a complete system for the island's telephones. I negotiated it with Cable and Wireless in Barbados. I showed in a letter exactly how Cable and Wireless could and would provide a service, but nothing satisfactory was done in the 12 months.
I do not entirely blame my right hon. Friend. Other hon. Members have put their finger on the reason for this. Mr. Bradshaw was unlikely to give way easily on these matters. These were some of his trump cards, and if he gave them all away he would never get Anguilla back. The flaw in our settlement perhaps was that the man appointed as senior British official to do the job was not the powerful person that he should have been. He could not do the job of a politician. It probably needed somebody who could do some tough bargaining with Mr. Bradshaw in connection with matters like the Post Office savings books and the pay and the pensions of the civil servants.
Mr. Bradshaw is a good friend of mine. He is a tough politician, but he is a likeable man. He has been a statesman throughout this matter, but he is


also a tough negotiator. He would say to any civil servant, in this situation, "Get out; you will not expect me to play all my trump cards". But if a politician were to go there and argue the matter face to face with Mr. Bradshaw a settlement could be reached.
The difficulty arose out of a double failure; in the sense that after our mission we did not leave behind the strongest possible type of man—perhaps that was impossible—and, secondly, that during these 12 months the Commonwealth Office did not chase up every one of the points that we left behind for settlement by the Department.
I go further. During this 12 months the hon. Member for Surbiton and I have been to the Commonwealth Office on several occasions to ask for information about the progress of the interim settlement. Not once have we been invited into the Commonwealth Office. On every occasion it is we who have asked to see the Minister to try to press for faster progress to be made. Now I do not claim to know everything about the situation; but it is symptomatic of the position. First, we did not leave behind a strong enough man and, secondly, the Commonwealth Office could not see its way to making better progress during the 12 months. That may be the correct diagnosis of the situation, and the reason why there has been a failure.
There were no misconceptions about the interim settlement, and there was certainly never any understanding that after 12 months Anguilla would go back to St. Kitts. That was clear to Mr. Bradshaw. He knew it. This was an interim settlement, which might have to be continued. It was felt that we might be able to bring Anguilla steadily round. Mr. Bradshaw hoped that that would be the case, but he was under no misconception that we were promising that. Nor were the Anguillans thinking that we were going to lead them to independence. That is absolutely clear in the settlement.
What of the future? We must send somebody of a political character to the Caribbean—somebody who can to some extent he a friendly influence and can get on with the West Indians. He must be able to see the problems that exist

there and be able to knock heads together in the nicest way. That is the problem with this fragmented area. We must try to get the area together. I have urged, for example, that the area should make application to the International Development Authority for development funds for roads such as we are now providing in Anguilla. The International Development Authority will not deal with populations of fewer than 300,000. Together with United States and Canada we have just done a survey of economic needs, but those countries will not provide the money to develop these islands until they can get together and there is a sign of political stability, based on bigger units.
I regretted the withdrawal of Britain. I regretted the Act giving associated status. I was the only hon. Member who spoke against its Second Reading. I regretted the withdrawal of the British presence too early from the Caribbean. But there is much that we can still do, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue this suggestion. He knows that many of us have been pressing for years for the appointment of somebody who will provide a good British presence at the top—a Malcolm MacDonald type of person—urging these islands to get together, giving them a little lead and a little push. They do not resent us. They are more British than half of us. They would take a lead from British wisdom and experience. This is a British part of the world and it is aching for a little more British presence to solve its problems. I hope that that is how we shall go forward in the future.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: This is a Motion of censure by the Opposition and I think that I should try to censure the Government. I should have liked much more time to say many more things and deal especially with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard). My first point of censure is that we last debated this matter at 4 o'clock in the morning on 25th March on the Consolidated Fund Bill. That is not a very nice time to debate anything and I was very kind to the Under-Secretary of State and said that I would not expect him to answer all my questions, on the understanding that, within 48 hours or shortly after, he would


give me written answers to my questions. It was not a time at which to expect a considered reply.
But since that date, I have not had one letter from the Under-Secretary dealing with any of the points which I put to him and which I kindly let him off the hook of answering at the time. I think that that is disgraceful. If the hon. Gentleman claims, as he may, that he answered my questions in his speech, I would say that that is totally wrong. If he reads it again, he will find that many of the questions which I put to him have not been answered. It is degrading debates in the House of Commons if one does that sort of thing and when a Minister has not the courtesy to write a letter and say even, "I am not going to answer the questions because they are too difficult or too embarrassing". I hope that this will not happen again and I certainly shall not let the hon. Gentleman off the hook another time.
I should like to select only two of my questions which were not answered out of the many which went unanswered but which need an answer and which the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has not answered today. On the answers to these questions depends one's judgment of the whole Anguillan affair. On 17th April, I asked the Prime Minister whether he would set up an inquiry to go into the legality of the whole operation and to produce the evidence upon which a decision to invade was taken.
I did this because I was concerned about Britain's good name in world affairs. I was not concerned with party politics, but I am ashamed of what this Government have done when I go abroad, as I have recently been, to Scandinavia and America. By their Anguillan operation, this Government are the laughingstock of the world. If the Foreign Secretary denies that, as he has done, let him get out of his cosseted diplomatic circles and go among the people of America and Scandinavia and talk to them, because they are thoroughly critical of the whole thing.

Mr. M. Stewart: I was, of course, in America shortly after this to attend a N.A.T.O. Parliamentary meeting. I do not accept for one moment the suggestion

which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend make. They pick up things written by a few journalists and a few cartoonists and give them as reasons for criticising their own Government. It is a totally inadequate reason.

Mr. Marten: I was in Washington at exactly the same time as the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I was not with the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians and diplomats, who were far too polite, of course, to tell him the truth. I was down in Tennessee and in Connecticut and Virginia and it was there, standing in queues with the common people of America, that I realised that they are criticising and laughing at us; and I was ashamed.
It is because of this that I want a "full, frank and searching inquiry"—as the Prime Minister would call it—into this whole affair. When I asked the Prime Minister for that, he was evasive. I said that I wanted an inquiry into "the legality of the operation". What did he do? Exactly what one would expect of him. He said that the question should have been addressed to the Attorney-General, who was at the time sitting on the bench beside him—just because I had questioned the legality. What a childish response! But one has come to expect that these days from the Prime Minister.
But I am still concerned to clear up all the doubt in the world over the behaviour of this Government. The first question which we have to decide and clear up is the conflicting aims which seep through the present muddled situation. I go back to the point which I put at 4 o'clock in the morning to the Under-Secretary of State. At the conference of Commonwealth Heads of Government at Port of Spain, Britain was asked to take all necessary steps to preserve the territorial integrity of the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. That request implied no separation of Anguilla from St. Kitts. Then, of course, one has the statement of the Under-Secretary when he arrived at the airport implying that it would be separated.
Then, in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, he said:
It seemed to me … that if we, within the West Indies Act, legalised the temporary severance of Anguilla from the State of St. Kitts …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1969 Vol. 780, c. 1550.]


"The temporary severance". In other words, is Anguilla to go back to St. Kitts or are those words a mistake? A temporary severance is what is apparently in the Government's mind.
The next step which would appear from the hon. Gentleman's winding-up speech in that debate was that, having decided that, he then discussed this proposal, presumably to invade, with the other Caribbean Governments and said that his proposals were acceptable to those Governments in the Caribbean with whom he had been able to discuss the matter. Who were the Governments with whom he had been able to discuss it? In the event, very few seem to agree with what the Government have done.
These conflicting statements simply do not make sense. It is absolute proof that the Government have got themselves into a muddle. I believe that the answer to this question of temporary severance is that the Government have got an agreement which they refuse to publish—I have asked the Minister whether he will publish it and he refuses—with Mr. Bradshaw which they are simply ashamed to publish.
They have no legal power to interfere as they have done in the internal affairs of the State except at the request of Mr. Bradshaw. He did not request the Government to invade. The Government proposed it and Mr. Bradshaw agreed to it. There has been no request and I therefore maintain—this is what I believe that an inquiry would show—that the invasion of Anguilla was illegal. Of course, the price of the agreement with Mr. Bradshaw is surely that Anguilla's separation is, as the Under-Secretary let it out, perhaps inadvertently, only temporary, yet the Government know that the one thing which the Anguillans will not take is going back under St. Kitts.
The reason for all this muddle is that the Government have not taken the quesion of Anguilla seriously. They have had far too many changes of Ministers—changes of Ministries, indeed: the merging of the Colonial Office with the Commonwealth Office and then with the Foreign Office—with Ministers switching in and out of the job, and there is not one person there who, before this happened, really understood the Caribbean.

The people who did understand the Caribbean were those on the back benches.
I come now to the second question which I have picked out from those which were left unanswered during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. We have had no satisfactory evidence yet to justify the invasion. I put down a Question to the Under-Secretary to ask him
… if he will publish the agreement with the St. Kitts Government about the invasion of Anguilla.
He replied:
There was no invasion of Anguilla."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 166.]
I found that an astonishing Answer. I do not know what on earth the operation was. I am told that it was "supporting the establishment of the Commissioner". That is legalistic nonsense, and the Minister should be ashamed of an Answer like that.
I ask for the hard evidence of the amount and type of arms. The Government must know this by now and, if they cannot produce that evidence, I would respectfully submit that they have not got the evidence. If they have not got the evidence, the whole of their case falls to the ground and this invasion then comes back to the fact that Mr. Holcomb, one American, had to be removed, so 250 parachutists were sent for that purpose.
Of course, the Under-Secretary of State in his speech on the Consolidated Fund Bill, attempted to cover up. He thought that this might happen, that they might not find all the arms:
Is it not likely that we shall never find the arms and that they have been taken off the island?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 1555.]
He is covering up by this. May we be told precisely what arms were discovered?
The whole conception of the Anguillan operation has been a farce, a tragicomedy and an all-star opera bouffe from beginning to end. In the name of Britain, I sincerely ask the Foreign Secretary—the Prime Minister has laughed this out of court—to conduct an inquiry and publish a White Paper to answer the questions we have asked. This should be done for the good name of Britain at home and overseas, because these questions are


worrying not only us but many people abroad.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) opened the debate with a combination of unusual ferocity and flippancy which did not do justice to the gravity of the subject under discussion. Although the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was also ferocious, at least he debated the matter in a way which corresponded to the seriousness of the issues.
It is true that Anguilla, with its 6,000 inhabitants, is little more than the size of a rural district. It is equally true that the personalities involved have been such that tantrums have been elevated into political drama and private abuse into great political declarations. But the situation in Anguilla has an importance which reaches far beyond the limited area of the island itself, and it is in that context that I wish to deal with the subject.
Let us remember that Cuba is also a Caribbean island and that this vast area, its islands now made neighbours by jet travel, is of the greatest strategic importance and should not be underestimated. Indeed, there is far more involved than the purely political matters that have been mentioned today. Although it is of the greatest importance that the local problems should be dealt with fairly and justly, they cannot be separated from the wider considerations which affect this area.
It was not philanthropy which induced the Committee of 24 on 6th March, 1967, to condemn Her Majesty's Government for their alleged tardiness in decolonisation. It will be recalled that it was originally Mr. Khrushchev in 1960 who, in his famous Resolution No. 1514, sought to speed up the decolonisation of, in particular, the Caribbean area. As we know, that was not simply an act of philanthropy on his part. His whole object was to try to diminish the Western presence in the area.
For the benefit of the House I will recall part of the speech which Lord Caradon made on that occasion. He said in reply to a resolution which sought to condemn Britain:

Are we to assume that the sponsors of this resolution wish to stipulate that all the remaining colonial territories, however small, poor or isolated, must be required to abandon their own freely expressed aims, and that they should be forced to walk the plank into independent isolation whether they wish it or not?
He added:
Any such arrogant intention would certainly be resented and rejected by the peoples concerned.
There is a danger that some of the territories in the Caribbean might be forced precisely into that isolation. That would expose them to sinister political and, in some cases, financial repercussions such as those mentioned by the Foreign Secretary.
The Caribbean has something of the quality of the American Far West during the era of expansion in the 19th century. It is an area that attracts the entrepreneur and pioneer, but also the gangster, exploiter and speculator. It is neither melodrama nor farce to say that this area is vulnerable to both the individual speculator as well as to the more dangerous penetration of political interests like Black Power—this has not been mentioned today, but qualified observers say that these forces are seeking to extend their influence into the area—and the Communist bloc.
The Caribbean is, I believe, an area of legitimate Western defence, expressed through space tracking and oceanographic stations. It would be dangerous in the extreme to allow irresponsible and, in some cases, sinister bodies to obtain footholds in the area and to replace even such existing authorities with those intruders.
One of the chief dangers in the Caribbean is that of fragmentation and loss of political orientation. The culture of these islands belongs to a colonial past and there are legitimate resentments, despite the loyalty of many of the former colonies of Britain, that because of exploitation these islands have lacked an opportunity to develop and still suffer from a colonial inheritance. Some of the resentments expressed by, for example, Mr. Webster towards Mr. Bradshaw spring from a desire on the part of the Anguillans not to substitute a form of black exploitation for white exploitation. In the 10 years before 1967 St. Kitts had grants and loans totalling £2,145,000. That is a substantial sum and we should be told what portion of it went to Anguilla.
Nobody can doubt that in many areas the Caribbean islands are colonial slums which have fallen into a decay accelerated by economic change. One illustration of this is the decline in the salt industry on islands like the Turks and Caicos, leaving a dwindling population with little to sustain it except the hope of a developing tourist industry. The poverty is great. Trinidad and Tobago have a per capita income of 630 dollars, but in Anguilla as a whole I doubt whether the per capita income is much more than 250 dollars. Nobody can describe those as large sums.
After 300 years of colonial rule it is now notorious—this has been advertised widely in the Press—that Anguilla is a country without any system of roads and, in modern terms, is without the telephone and the ordinary civilised amenities of life. Although it has some concrete houses, the Minister did not inform us that they exist simply because Hurricane Donna swept away a great many of the ramshackle wooden structures that previously existed, with the result that new dwellings had to be built from scratch.
It is obvious that Her Majesty's Government could not allow Anguilla, because of its isolation, to fall prey of the interests to which I have referred. While it is conceivable that the occupation or "discipline"—perhaps that is a better word to use—of Anguilla might have taken place with 50 Metropolitan policemen, I believe that my right hon. Friend was right when he said at an earlier stage that had an attempt been made to enter the island and had that attempt been repulsed with bloody consequences, the Government would have failed in their duty and would then have been censured for having to take appropriate steps to carry out their policy.
The intervention was set in train by the ruffianly treatment of the Under-Secretary, whose conduct in a difficult and dangerous situation was in my view exemplary. Although the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) appears to be raising his eyebrows at that, I assure him, knowing the temper of some of these islands, that it would have been absurdly suicidal for the Under-Secretary to have offered not only himself but his party as martyrs. That would not have enhanced Britain's status and it would inevitably have led to

a far harsher reaction against Mr. Webster and his associates than proved to be the case. In the end it would have had damaging consequences both for Anguilla and Britain. It was Mr. Webster, after all, who said that he could not guarantee the safety of the Under-Secretary. If a man who professed to be in control made that admission, it was quite clear that law and order had broken down.
If there is one criticism that I would venture to make of the Government it is their lack of support of Mr. Lee. It seems to me, without any knowledge of Mr. Lee personally, and seeing the matter from outside, that in a very difficult situation the Commissioner did not receive adequate support for the duties which had been imposed on him. Even when Lord Caradon turned up he was dealing with a Mr. Webster who constantly changed his footing so that from one day to another it was impossible precisely to know his position.
I am, however, delighted that Mr. John Cumber—whom I knew while I was on a visit which I paid to the Cayman Islands in order to make a report on its Constitution for the Colonial Office—has gone to act as Government representative. Mr. Cumber is an extremely popular administrator and one who is used to face-to-face confrontations in the intimacy of a small island. I am confident that not only does he deserve the support of the Government but will, in turn, give Government policy effective backing. With the background of his own substantial experience, he will be able to talk to Mr. Webster on a basis of mutual confidence, and I hope that, having come from the Caymans, where the religious and loyal population is a counterpart in some way of the population of Anguilla, he will be able to talk to Mr. Webster in a way in which his predecessors failed to do.
What of the future? What sort of status should Anguilla have? What should happen to the Parachute Regiment? I believe that at this present stage the Government should see that there is a progressive reduction of purely military forces, and that the Royal Engineers should be maintained, as long as it is possible for them to work in harmony with the indigenous population, in trying to catch up on the many years of neglect from which Anguilla now suffers.
I believe that in the long run only the principle of federation can give any kind of healthy viability to the Caribbean islands. The West Indies Federation originally broke down because of the impossibility of communication over vast areas, but we have to remember that when the West Indies Federation was established communications were primarily by means of the petrol-driven aeroplane. But the distances were large, the aircraft slow, and communications were inadequate in the absence of rapid communication. Through lack of jet aircraft, even through the lack of telephones and radio, the whole concept of a federation covering such vast distances became almost impossible.
In the seven years that have since passed, the jet aircraft has linked the islands as previously they were not linked. It has shortened distances and speeded up communications, and I think that we should now return to some of the original concepts of federation, and precisely the kind of federation that we are seeking to create elsewhere. I think that through these communications we can make Britain herself as close a neighbour of the Caribbean as some of the islands are to each other.
In those circumstances, I commend the Government for not abdicating their responsibility in Anguilla. I commend them, too, for taking a longer and wider view than have those who have opposed their policy today.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I can say what I have to say in just the two minutes that are available to me.
First, I ask the Under-Secretary to stress to his right hon. Friend the importance of a White Paper. That White Paper must deal with two things. First, it must contain the evidence to hand of the arms and of the disreputable men. We have the Metropolitan police, we have a large number of soldiers in the islands, and we have the population which the Government say was intimidated and would, therefore, be anxious to provide to the police the evidence which the Government claim to have.
Secondly, the White Paper must set out the legal position. There is some doubt about the legal position, and recent

correspondence in The Times has indicated this. The Statutory Instruments Committee has also some doubt about it. It is particularly important for those of us who go from this country to international bodies, to Strasbourg, to W.E.U. and to the United Nations, to have the evidence and the legal position quite clear so that we can stand up for this country in the eyes of the world.
Secondly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will clear up the one straight question: was this or was it not the second armed landing by British troops in Anguilla? In the other place, my right hon. Friend the noble Lord, Lord Jellicoe, raised this question and, answering for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that there was not a previous landing. My information is that there was. The veracity of the British Government is at stake, and we must have a firm answer. Was there or was there not a second landing?
In the conduct of our foreign policy, can we not have a little more sense of perspective? When I was in New York at the time the Americans were concerned, as they rightly should have been, with the Soviet-Chinese border forces and with the A.B.M. question. They honestly thought, when the British Chiefs of Staff were called in and when emergency meetings of the Cabinet were held, that the British had "lost their marbles". We must have more perspective in the conduct of foreign affairs. In particular, we must avoid, until every other possibility has been exhausted, the landing of white troops in black islands. This is folly in 1969, and I hope that the Government will think very carefully before doing it again on such slender evidence.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I have listened very carefully to the whole debate, but I fear that there can be no escape for the Government from censure of their handling of this unhappy affair. Since they took the decision two years ago to create the Associated State of St. Kitts/Nevis/Anguilla there have been three phases, in each of which their conduct has been lamentable. Throughout, they have lacked any clear idea of how to handle the matter, and even at this late hour there is no solution in sight for the tiny island of Anguilla and its inhabitants.
First, there was the phase of appalling complacency, during which Ministers turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the disturbing behaviour of Mr. Robert Bradshaw—head of the new Government of the associated State—and the rising tide of protest from Anguilla.
Secondly, there was the phase of trying to run with the hare of the troubled Anguillans and hunt with the hounds of Mr. Bradshaw, and hoping that, somehow, sometime, the situation would resolve itself; that these awkward islanders would pipe down and that Mr. Bradshaw would grow more reasonable, when everyone who knew anything at all about the historic antipathy of the islands and the personalities involved knew that the Anguillans would have rather died than be put under the rule of St. Kitts. Indeed—surprise, surprise—they would have even preferred to return to the rule of Her Majesty's Government.
Thirdly, there was the phase which began with the military intervention, the moral and political justification for which is still obscure. How could it be otherwise? On the one hand, this was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Bradshaw and, seemingly, with that of the other Caribbean Commonwealth Governments which had called on Her Majesty's Government to take all necessary steps to restore Anguilla to the associated State, while on the other, we had the Anguillans being told that the whole purpose was to enable them to decide their own future. Here is a contradiction which at no time have Her Majesty's Government sought to resolve, and which has still not been resolved today.
I say that the Carribbean Commonwealth Government seemingly gave their approval but, in the event, as the House will recall, two of them condemned the subsequent action of Her Majesty's Government. So much for Commonwealth consultation. So much for the Government's understanding of the situation. Complacency and confusion are the characteristics of this unhappy story from the very beginning. Let me, therefore, take each phase in turn so that the House can judge for itself whether we have misjudged Her Majesty's Ministers.
My right hon. Friend said that when they created the Associated State Her

Majesty's Government should have known that they were taking a risk. This was rejected by some hon. Members opposite, but he was quite right. It is perfectly true that the representatives of the three islands at the Constitutional Conference in 1966 had come together and agreed to the setting up of the State, but what hon. Members opposite have forgotten is that after the Constitutional Conference was called and before the legislation was passed Mr. Bradshaw had won an election in St. Kitts, was installed in the seat of power, and was beginning to act in a way which gave a basis for the fears of the Anguillans.
It had been agreed by the Constitutional Conference that each island should have a largely elected local council, but once Mr. Bradshaw was in the saddle he took no steps to facilitate this provision and neither did the Government here do anything about it. The West Indies Bill was rushed through both Houses in the opening weeks of 1967, but before it reached another place Dr. Herbert, leader of the Opposition in St. Kitts and, Mr. Adams from Anguilla, came to London and raised serious objections. When my noble Friend, Lord Jellicoe, raised these matters he was given a bland assurance from the Government spokesman that the Government of St. Kitts would implement everything agreed at the Constitutional Conference. Indeed, Dr. Herbert and Mr. Adams were given specific assurances by the former Minister of State, the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), that legislation to provide local councils would be enacted by the St. Kitts Government before Statehood Day. She told the House that the atmosphere in Anguilla was now "very much calmer".
She was wrong on both counts, and in the weeks and months which followed it became clear from the many exchanges across the Floor of the House that promises would not be kept and that the situation was sliding to a disaster. What was so distressing to my hon. Friends who knew the area well was the persistent refusal of Ministers to see where events were leading. The Press reported that when the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) went to Anguilla just after Statehood Day he was taunted by demonstrators. When he came home he made light of it. There


had been a demonstration, he said, but the troubles were exaggerated. He added
It is quite clear that Anguilla is a part of St. Kitts and Nevis and when I met the Deputy Premier it was clear that the bulk of the people expressed that wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 715.]
But as my right hon. Friend said it was not the least bit clear. Only Her Majesty's Government were surprised when on 31st May the Anguillans expelled Mr. Bradshaw's police and made a U.D.I. declaring themselves
absolutely and conclusively independent from St. Kitts.
It was a somewhat different U.D.I. from that of Mr. Ian Smith, however, for it was accompanied by a moving declaration of faith which ran as follows
The history of the British Empire and Commonwealth gives us high hopes that we, as others, can enjoy both freedom and allegiance to the Crown. We humbly beg our Queen and the people of Britain to talk with us about sharing the future.
They were talking into the wind. Ministers here did not have the wit to see that an irretrievable step had been taken. Although a request was made to them by the Anguillans to explore some new arrangement for the island within the Commonwealth it was unthinkable where the Government were concerned that they should do anything about that and they said so. It might have been this Government that Freud had in mind when he observed that it is the unthinkable that one should think about.
There followed a breathing space won for the Government not by their own efforts but my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) who made such notable contributions to this debate. Their patient and skilful diplomacy secured agreement from both St. Kitts and the Anguillans to a Foreign Office official, Mr. Lee—being stationed on the island for a year with the object of maintaining direct contact between Britain and the islanders and allowing for a cooling off period. But the Government even threw away this opportunity to rethink the whole problem. They believed that Mr. Lee could persuade the Anguillans to return quietly to Mr. Bradshaw's fold. Not surprisingly this did not happen. When their leader Mr. Webster came to London

for talks they sent him away empty handed. When the year was up last January Mr. Lee had to go. Her Majesty's Government cut development aid, and the Anguillans voted by 1739 votes to 4 for independence under a new Constitution.
It is relevant to ask what was the attitude of Mr. Bradshaw and his Government throughout this period of doubt and uncertainty? Was it one of conciliation and genuine anxiety to allay the fears of the Anguillans? On the contrary he had provoked the situation by delaying the implementation of the agreement about local councils reached at the Constitutional Conference, and had been encouraged in this by the supine attitude of Ministers here. Maybe he had exaggerated when he boasted that he would bring the rebellious Anguillans to heel by turning their island into a desert.
Deeds, however, speak louder than words. This was the man who in mid-1967 proclaimed an emergency, threw all the opposition leaders into jail without charge, detained British subjects and treated them abominably, whose actions were condemned by his own judiciary and who constantly requested Britain to give him the equipment to take Anguilla back by force. But Her Majesty's Government not only did not have to consider such a request; they did not have to put up with the situation at all. They could have recognised that the cause of the trouble had been their own failure from the beginning to grasp the fact that if promises made at a Constitutional Conference were not kept and if the ruling government behaved tyrannically, then the Constitution itself would be imperilled, rebellion would result, and Britain, responsible as she is for defence and external affairs, would be put in an impossible position.
Indeed, there was an alternative to the policy of drift which they have followed. There was an alternative to the policy of military intervention towards which they were moving. They could have served notice on the St. Kitts Government that they would use the power given to them in section 10 of the West Indies Act to end the status of association. They could have made it plain that Britain would not be party to a situation which had changed out of all recognition since the Constitutional Conference of 1966. What


effect would this have had? It would certainly have shown the Anguillans that we were not unsympathetic to their plight. It might have persuaded the St. Kitts Government to moderate their tone. It is not unreasonable to believe that it might have led to other Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean—all of whom have an interest in the tranquillity of the area—to bring even heavier pressure to bear upon Mr. Bradshaw.
It would at any rate have indicated that Her Majesty's Government were big enough to say, "We have made a mistake. May be we should have listened to the fears that were expressed when we enacted this arrangement. May be we should have delayed giving associated status until the island councils were in being. Let us start again and let us work out a solution together amicably if we can". Instead they decided on military intervention.
So we came to the third phase which began with the ill fated visit of the Under-Secretary on 11th March. I make no comment as to what happened on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman has given his own account to the House. Suffice it to say that the message he carried did nothing to clear the air. True that message said,
Our wish is to ensure that you should be administered in a way acceptable to you.
But what did those words mean? Did they mean that the islanders were to be free of St. Kitts at last? Certainly not. If the message did not register it was not because Mafia-like elements were shouting down the voice of reason but because even at that late hour Her Majesty's Government were quite unable to say, "This is the end of your association with St. Kitts." They were unable to say that because when they finally intervened with troops it was with Mr. Bradshaw's approval as the St. Kitts radio has never ceased telling the Anguillans.
So we come to the invasion on 19th March. We still do not know the justification for this. Stretch the law how you like, Her Majesty's Government have no power to intervene in the domestic affairs of an Associated State. The Order in Council made under Section 7(2) has validity only in respect of Britain's responsibilities relating to defence and external affairs. Here I ask two questions.

First, what foreign Power or what foreign elements were threatening the territorial integrity of the Associated State? Secondly, the Foreign Secretary told us that the Government's action in sending troops was legal because it had the approval of the Government in St. Kitts. But how does this square with the declaration he made to this House as to the Anguillans that, "It is no part of our purpose to put them under an administration under which they do not wish to live"? If words mean anything at all that declaration means recognition of the right of Anguillans to secede. Was it really necessary to send in troops to give them that right? Was it really necessary to send in troops at all?
To the first of these questions the Government decline to give any answer. As to the second, they, like a drowning man clutching at a straw, eagerly answer, "Yes". The Under-Secretary of State has told us that the island was in the grip of "Mafia-like" elements, that arms were being imported by a man he would not name. The Foreign Secretary toned this down a little later. He thought that "Mafia-like" elements was an exaggeration. He preferred to alk of "disreputable characters with arms". This afternoon he added further vague allegations of arson, intimidation and murder.
Very well. There has now been effective military occupation of Anguilla for five weeks. By now surely the truth is known. Who were these disreputable elements? Let them be named. What were their crimes? Let these be set out. Who has been murdered? Whose houses have been burned down? We demand the publication of a White Paper setting out these matters—the only justification which the Government can give for their intervention, other than that they sent in troops with the approval of Mr. Bradshaw.
What quantity and type of arms were introduced into the island, and when? Some hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this is rather funny. Then let the details be given. When were these arms brought in? Were they brought in by the Anguillans to repel the threatened invasion by Mr. Bradshaw's gendarmerie in 1967 and 1968, or to wage war on Her Majesty's Government in 1969? The question is important.
The hon. Member for Northfield gave us evidence of how, during the interim period, Anguillans were arming themselves, not against paratroopers from the United Kingdom or against the Dagenham Girl Pipers, but against the possibility of armed men from St. Kitts descending upon them. So my question goes to the heart of the matter. It is precisely because of the earlier failure of Ministers to take the fears of the Anguillans seriously that the St. Kitts forces would descend upon them that there may be some justification—God forbid that I should give them any encouragement—for arming themselves.
Does it not strike the House as odd that, after the troops had gone in, the Mafia-like elements had fled and the arms had disappeared, we still had a situation where for a time Mr. Lee could not use his office, the courtroom could not be opened, and even Lord Caradon's neatly-contrived settlement broke down.
Is it not possible that the real enemy lay in the hearts and minds of the Anguillans who had once humbly begged Her Majesty and the people of Britain to listen to them, but who now found themselves liberated by British troops sent in with the approval of the hated St. Kitts Government.
As to the future, there is still no clear aim. The whole House was shocked to hear the Foreign Secretary say, in his statement on 19th March, that direct British rule might last for years. Five days later, he admitted that perhaps he had exaggerated the time needed. It is understandable that, against this background, the Anguillans should have talked about holding their own referendum over their future.
There is, I think, a new danger in this situation, namely, that the Government will continue to drift without any clear idea as to where they are going. What sort of future do they envisage for Anguilla? By now they should have consulted with the islanders and started to make up their own minds. But how does one consult without a proper council? Why has a council not yet been elected? Elections should be held without delay.
As to what kind of future, there are a number of alternatives, several of which have been given in this debate. I will

not go into them all now. But one thing is clear. There can be no peace in Anguilla until the association with St. Kitts is ended. Nor is there likely to be much progress until we see an end to the military occupation. When will the troops be withdrawn?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton that these are matters on which the Commonwealth Governments in the Caribbean should be consulted. It is sad to reflect that, if there had been any real unity in the Caribbean and the West Indies Federation had not broken up, this problem need never have arisen. But it should have been solved not by the sending of troops, but by the good will, and the conciliatory offices of Jamaica, Barbados and Trinidad. Even now, if the Anguillans wish it, it will be better for the Queen's Commissioner on the island to be a West Indian. I hope consideration will be given to this suggestion.
It may be that the Government are now stirring themselves and are devising plans for the future. But the damage has been done. It is because of the bungling of the last two years, because no real justification has yet been given to the House for the military intervention, because of the continued doubt in our minds as to where the Government are going, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I must register our strong disapproval in the Lobby.

6.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): Since I have so little time in which to reply to this debate, I should like first to deal with the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to an interjection from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Lord Lambton), an interjection which was misunderstood. I wish to make it clear that it is untrue to suggest that Mr. Byron, representative of the State Government of Anguilla, was installed by British Marines.
In fact, H.M.S. "Salisbury" landed territorial police in Anguilla on 15th February, 1967, supported by Royal Navy personnel, to conduct a search in connection with minor disturbances. When that was done, they went back to their ship. [Interruption.] I am not giving way. I have so little time in which


to answer the debate. The hon. Gentleman opposite was not interrupted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I do not intend to give way.
It is the case of the Opposition that the troubles in Anguilla should have been foreseen. Unfortunately for hon. Gentlemen opposite, this argument cuts both ways. Some of us on this side of the House are equally entitled to ask what the Conservative Party did in the many years when they were in Government and responsible for the conduct of affairs in the Caribbean.
The Anguillan affair has dramatised in every way the dilemma which faces so many small islands in that area. Why was it that the West Indies Federation, in which such small islands as this had a place, was allowed to collapse? Were hon. Gentlemen opposite not firm enough, imaginative enough or sensitive enough to understand the feelings of the people in this area? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the debate."]
The accusation has been made that we should have known that there was a secessionist movement in Anguilla before statehood. What is the evidence? Just before statehood there was opposition, not to change, but to the timing of the change. In every territory where constitutional change is about to occur, there is opposition and doubt.
One noble Lord in another place told us of the fears in Anguilla about the granting of statehood. I suggest that one swallow does not make a summer. One noble Lord, however well-intentioned, is certainly not evidence that, on that side of the House, there is overwhelming sagacity about what was going on in the area.
It should be made clear that, although we were aware of the indications of Anguillan discontent at their neglect by the central Government, there was at no stage before statehood any real reason to believe that this discontent would take the form of a secessionist movement or that any such movement would have any solid backing on the island. As my right hon. Friend has said, opposition to statehood came late in Anguilla.
The elected Member for Anguilla signed the report of the Constitutional Conference without a qualm. The document

provided for local government on Anguilla. What caused anxiety was fear that the State Government might not implement those provisions as speedily as they should. This fear was by no means alleviated by the Opposition in St. Kitts who no doubt saw it, as Oppositions tend to do, as a stick with which to beat the Government.
The last-minute moves to postpone statehood were of a kind not uncommon when a new measure of constitutional advance takes place. The fact is that, with a little good will and understanding on both sides, they need not have led to unhappy results. Precisely the same provisions for local government were made in respect of Nevis, an island which also has had its differences with central Government. Yet on Nevis arrangements went through without difficulty, and Nevis now has its own elected council and remains a part of the Associated State.
Then there have been criticisms of the concept of Associated Statehood. This is an arrangement devised for small territories which could not support the trappings of independence but which were capable of internal self-government. Where is the evidence that amongst the Tory Opposition there was a belief that associated statehood was an unworkable arrangement? There is not any such evidence. In the debates on the various stages of the West Indies Bill no protests, no words of warning, no opposition to the concept of associated statehood, came from the Tory Opposition. The Opposition accepted the concept because they could think of nothing to take its place. As the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) revealed, it was their own concept. It is no wonder, therefore, that they did not oppose it. They still cannot in opposition find anything to take its place.
We are at the moment, following my visit to all the Associated States and my conversations with the Governments of the five Associated States, considering the future of these Associated States. All the suggestions advanced in particular by the hon. Member for Surbiton and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) are already being considered and will be taken fully into account when we come to make a


decision on the matter. We are very grateful to the hon. Members for these proposals.
I come now to the suggestion that the period of the interim settlement was a wasted year. As hon. Members know full well, the two sides to the interim settlement accepted that the people of each island would refrain from hostile activities against the property or individuals of the other island and that in the period of the interim settlement efforts would be made in good faith by all to restore friendship and harmony between the two islands.
It may very well be that the two parties to the arrangement had different ideas about what the arrangement meant. Nevertheless, those were the words upon which they agreed. To the British Government it appeared that there were prospects of conciliation. It was right that we should explore all the avenues leading to co-operation and harmony. That is exactly what we did.
Unfortunately, what we hoped for did not materialise. But should we in the period of the interim settlement have said that it must end? Surely it was for the parties to that settlement to decide whether at any stage during that period they wished it to end. They did not indicate that they wished it to end.
In October, 1968, towards the end of the year of the interim settlement, the parties to the agreement came to London, and for two and a half weeks Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Webster discussed the matter in London. Mr. Bradshaw was willing to compromise, to give increased autonomy to Anguilla. Mr. Webster was completely intransigent and, however fat we got along the road to compromise between Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Webster's legal adviser, back we would come ovet and over again to the point where Mr. Webster would say, "It would be suicide for me to go back with any other understanding than that of associated statehood for Anguilla or for colonial status".
As to the continuation of the interim settlement which the hon. Member for Surbiton said that we failed to negotiate, I would point out that we attempted to get an extension of the interim settlement. Again Mr. Webster turned down the idea of an extension of the interim settlement,

though Mr. Bradshaw accepted it in principle. Mr. Webster went back saying that he would discuss this with his Council. In fact it was not until 30th December of last year that we were finally informed by Mr. Webster that all prospect of settlement must be abandoned.
Why were not the proposals which I took to Anguilla made available in October, 1968? The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) suggested in a supplementary question the other day that had those proposals been made in October, 1968, they would have been acceptable to Mr. Webster, so why were they not made then? As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, under the West Indies Act Her Majesty's Government can legislate to change the status of Anguilla only at the request and with the consent of the State Government. That consent was not available in 1968.

Mr. Marten: Has the request been made yet?

Mr. Whitlock: Following my visit to the Caribbean, I had talks, as I have said already, with all the Governments of the Associated States of the Ciribbean. There was in three of those States extreme apprehension of the activities of undesirable characters on those islands, too. A parallel was drawn between their fears of the subversive elements on their islands with what was happening on Anguilla. I talked with many people in the area—Anguillans and non-Anguillans—and learned, even if I had not known before, the strength of the feeling of the Anguillans against a return to government by St. Kitts.
I drew up proposals in the Caribbean which, as hon. Gentlemen know, were explained at the airport in Anguilla. There was a statesman-like acceptance on the part of the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla that there was terrific opposition on Anguilla to return to government by St. Kitts. The hope was that, with the return to stability in the area once the proposals were in operation, with the end of the intimidation which was going on on the island, with the development of the area, and with the evident interest of the whole of the Caribbean in the affairs of Anguilla, the feeling of neglect that Anguillans had long found would soon disappear.
With these proposals I went to the island. The allegations of the countries of the Caribbean that Anguilla was a threat to the security of the whole area were borne out by what happened.

Mr. Marten: Where are the guns?

Mr. Whitlock: I will deal with the allegations about Mafia-type characters, undesirable characters, extremely unpleasant people—whatever one wishes to call them. There have been statements that those people have not been seen there by some people. They have been seen by others. I did not seek them out. They came to me—and I wish I had not seen them.
The hon. Member for Banbury asked—who are these people; where are the arms? As I pointed out in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, many of these people have now left the island. The arms are not there.

Mr. Marten: Who were these people?

Mr. Whitlock: What hon. Members are saying is that, if my house is robbed, I must not complain to the police that robbery has occurred unless I can say who robbed my house, where the jemmies are which were used by the robbers, and

where the robbers came from. This is a ridiculous argument.

Mr. Marten: Who saw the guns?

Mr. Whitlock: Complaints about intimidation on the island have been going on for a very long time. Mr. Adams, who was the elected representative of Anguilla who came to the Barbados Conference in 1967, said that there were arms on the island, that intimidation was taking place, that undesirable characters were on the island, and that he and three other members of the elected Council of Anguilla had been threatened with death. Those are the statements which were made by Mr. Adams at the Barbados Conference.
Surely it must be evident to the House that once armed forces have dominated the affairs of the island, how then could we influence its—[Interruption.]—once armed people were dominating the affairs of the island, how could we influence its future until we have had removed the possibility of an armed minority continuing to terrorise the island? I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 286.

Division No. 166.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Burden, F. A.
Foster, Sir John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Astor, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Carlisle, Mark
Glover, Sir Douglas


Awdry, Daniel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Glyn, Sir Richard


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Channon, H. P. G.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip


Balniel, Lord
Clark, Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Cordle, John
Grant, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Costain, A. P.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Bell, Ronald
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Glos. &amp; Fhm)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gurden, Harold


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Currie, G. B. H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bessell, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Biffen, John
Dance, James
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Biggs-Davison, John
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Harris, Header (Heston)


Blaker, Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfleid
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)



Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Donnelly, Desmond
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Body, Richard
Doughty, Charles
Hastings, Stephen


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Drayson, G. B.
Hawkins, Paul


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hay, John


Braine, Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heseltine, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Emery, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Hiley, Joseph


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Hill, J. E. B.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eyre, Reginald
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Fisher, Nigel
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fortescue, Tim
Hooson, Emlyn




Hordern, peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Sharpies, Richard


Hornby, Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Silvester, Frederick


Hunt, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Iremonger, T. L.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Irvine, Bryant Goodman (Rye)
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stainton, Keith


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Neave, Airey
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Nichols, Sir Harmar
Stodart, Anthony


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Onslow, Cranley
Tapsell, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Temple, John M.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Kirk, Peter
Pardoe, John
Tilney, John


Kitson, Timothy
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lambton, Viscount
Peel, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Percival, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lane, David
Peyton, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Waddington, David


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pink, R. Bonner
Wainwrght, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Pounder, Rafton
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wall, Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Lubbock, Eric
Prior, J. M. L.
Weatherill, Bernard


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wiggin, A. W.


McMaster, Stanley
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


McNair. Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Maddan, Martin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maginnis, John E.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodnutt, Mark


Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Worsley, Marcus


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wright, Esmond


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony
Wylie, N. R.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Younger, Hn. George


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Jasper More.


Monro, Hector






NOES


Abse, Leo
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunnett, Jack


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cant, R. B.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Alldritt, Walter
Carmichael, Neil
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Anderson, Donald
Chapman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Peter
Coe, Denis
Edelman, Maurice


Ashley, Jack
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
English, Michael


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ennals, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ensor, David


Barnett, Joel
Cronin, John
Fernyhough, E.


Baxter, William
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Finch, Harold


Bence, Cyril
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bidwell, Sydney
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Foley, Maurice


Binns, John
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Ford, Ben


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Forrester, John




Fowler, Gerry


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Boston, Terence
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gardner, Tony


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Garrett, W. E.


Boyden, James
Delargy, Hugh
Ginsburg, David


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Edmund
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dempsey, James
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Brooks, Edwin
Dewar, Donald
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Gregory, Arnold


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dobson, Ray
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunn, James A.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)







Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Macdonald, A. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rankin, John


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Rees, Merlyn


Hamling, William
Mackie, John
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.


Hannan, William
Mackintosh John P.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Haseldine, Norman
MacPherson, Malcolm
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Hazell, Bert
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Roebuck, Roy


Henig, Stanley
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hilton, W. S.
Manuel, Archie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hobden, Dennis
Mapp, Charles
Sheldon, Robert


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marquand, David
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Howie, W.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Hoy, James
Maxwell, Robert
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christopher
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Skeffington, Arthur


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Mendelson, John
Slater, Joseph


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Moonman, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Janner, Sir Barnett
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Symonds, J. B.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Taverne, Dick


Jeger, George (Goole)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St P'cras, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Neal, Harold
Thornton, Ernest


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Newens, Stan
Tinn, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Norwood, Christopher
Tomney, Frank


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oakes, Gordon
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ogden, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Judd, Frank
O'Malley, Brian
Varley, Eric G.


Kelley, Richard
Oram, Albert E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kenyon, Clifford
Orbach, Maurice
Watkins, David (Consett)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth Central)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Weitzman, David


Lawson, George
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wellbeloved, James


Ledger, Ron
Padley, Walter
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Whitaker, Ben


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Paget, R. T.
Whitlock, William


Lee, John (Reading)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Park, Trevor
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lipton, Marcus
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lomas, Kenneth
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilson William (Coventry, S.)


Loughlin, Charles
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Winnick, David


Luard, Evan
Pentland, Norman
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Woof, Robert


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)



McBride, Neil
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McCann, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Charles Grey and


MacColl, James
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.


MacDermot, Niall

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

The Clerk Assistant at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER.

It being after Seven o'clock, the House took into consideration the Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Orders of the Day — WALSALL CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Before we consider the first of the three Private Bills set down for consideration this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I raise


a point of order which affects hon. Members who are interested in the matters which are the subject of the three Bills. As we have them all set down for consideration on the same day, those hon. Members who wish to make a speech on each have not been given adequate time to prepare their speeches and to study these extremely extensive Bills. The first runs to no fewer than 271 Clauses and six Schedules, touching on many serious issues of public policy, and the other two are almost equally extensive. I suggest that it is unfair to hon. Members to expect them to consider in the course of a single afternoon and evening the matters contained in all three Bills.
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge it is wholly without precedent for three Private Bills taken in the course of an afternoon to be exempted business, which means that their promoters can keep us here until whatever hour of the night they choose, until any opposition is exhausted. I respectfully suggest that this is a serious attack on the freedom of private Members, back benchers, to represent views on the Bills to the House and to see that they are given adequate consideration.
Therefore, as this is the only opportunity I have of raising the matter, since the Motion for the suspension is not debatable at Ten o'clock, I urge you not to allow the other two Bills to be exempted business, but to give us time to consider the first and have the other two set down on another day.

Mr. William Wells: Further to that point of order. I respectfully submit that there is no substance whatever in the first point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), since his Motion has been on the Order Paper for some weeks and it was therefore possible for other hon. Members, as for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must deal with the substance of the point of order and not allow a debate to take place.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for giving me notice that he would raise this matter. There is nothing in the Motion for the suspension on the Order Paper that is out of order, and at Ten o'clock hon.

Members will have the opportunity, if necessary, of opposing that Motion.
Having disposed of the question of order, perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. It is not unprecedented for this to happen. There are at least three precedents, although I should say that if it were unprecedented it would still not be out of order.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about making speeches, he may feel on consideration that he can make one major speech on the first Bill. He will be aware that the texts of the Bills are very similar, and he may be able to make his major point and achieve his purpose on the first Bill. Otherwise, I cannot help him.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that no point of order arises here.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: If ever there was a valid argument in favour of regional government, the point of order of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is justification, because the Measures with which we have to deal, despite the hon. Gentleman's remarks, are mainly in the form of model clauses taken from earlier legislation, and the Walsall Corporation Bill is a consolidation Measure.
The area that the Walsall Corporation now administers as a result of the West Midlands Order, 1965 includes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I correct an omission. I should have dealt with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). This has not been selected. As far as the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is concerned, it would be satisfactory if he would allow the subject matter of his Instruction to arise normally and naturally in the course of the general debate on the Second Reading, and if he wishes to put the Instruction he may do so formally after the Second Reading.

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The area of the Walsall Corporation now includes no fewer than five with the doubtful benefit of a Private Act—Wednesbury, Willenhall, Bilston, Aldridge, and the


Staffordshire County Council. When one realises that under the West Midlands Order the existing legislation remains in force only until December 1970 one can see how important it is for these Measures to be passed. The urgency lies in the fact that between now and December 1970 we shall certainly have a General Election. It is therefore vital that we get these Bill through in the present Session. Otherwise they will have to be reintroduced in the next and run the danger of being slaughtered on Prorogation. That would produce wholly unnecessary and avoidable administrative chaos.
I understand that the hon. Member for Orpington wishes to raise a number of points, and I do not want to anticipate them. I rely on the considerable forensic talents of the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells), who will reply on behalf of the promoters of the Bill.
Accordingly, I shall only say briefly that Part II deals with heating undertaking powers. Such powers were obtained by Dudley, Oldbury, Smethwick, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton in the late 1940s and early 1950s. They were disallowed in the case of the Southend-on-Sea Corporation Bill in 1960. But apparently the Minister of Housing and Local Government has now changed his view, because the trend towards building at higher densities, the growing demand for better standards of comfort in the home and technical advances have combined to make district heating schemes more attractive. The corporation thinks that there are places where such a scheme could be shown to be practicable and it therefore wishes to have these powers. Let me come to the part in which the hon. Member for Orpington is interested—

Mr. Lubbock: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the objections to the district heating part of the Bill which have been submitted by the Central Electricity Generating Board and West Midlands Electricity Board?

Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I will leave that to the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North.
The part of the Bill in which the hon. Member for Orpington is particularly interested

refers to the provision of camping sites for gipsies. Having gone through the expensive labour of getting the Caravan Sites Bill through the House during 1968, his disappointment that the Government have not yet implemented Part II of the Act, which gives it all its effect, is understandable. The Act is in a state of suspended animation and I can understand that the hon. Member seeks an appropriate method to bring this to the Government's attention in the hope that they will change their minds. I do not wish to pursue this matter except to express the hope that when he sees the enormous volume of avoidable administrative chaos—I stress the word "avoidable"—which could arise if the Bill were not given a Second Reading, he will consider, on reflection, that the right place for him to state his objections is in Committee.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South has some reservations about the superannuation fund of the corporation. I appreciate his point, but I understand that, even if the Clause were to be omitted, the legal position would not be altered. So I hope that he, too, on consideration, will feel that the advantage the national benefit, of sending the Bill to Committee outweighs the anxieties which the Clause has given him.
The Bill has been on the Order Paper for a long time and time is not on our side. Together with the other Bills which the House is to consider tonight, this is a necessary piece of machinery legislation which should in justice be given a Second Reading.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I hope that I will not be thought discourteous to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) if I observe that he said singularly little about the contents of the Bill, which, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said when raising his point of order, is quite lengthy, containing many Clauses and extensive powers for the Corporation. But he said nothing about the merits of the Bill or the necessity for the powers. He referred to the necessity for an early decision, which I understood, but that is not the same as arguments in support of the proposals.
I do not think that the object of the Amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Orpington, which has not been selected—an Amendment to which I was happy to put my name—is simply a cloak for pressure on the Government to implement Part II of the Caravan Sites Act, although I want to see it implemented. I thought that the hon. Member for Walsall, South was about to defend the Bill and give reasons why our opposition is ill-founded—if it is—but he said nothing on the subject.
We know that there are two further Bills for discussion but I hope that it will not necessarily be assumed that what is said on one debars discussion on the others, because it does not seem to me that the texts are quite as similar as might at first be thought. Some remarks might be applicable to one but not to another.
The Parliamentary agents acting for the promoters put out a statement referring to the objections raised. It was entirely accurate so far as it went, but a little selective. The concept of the Caravan Sites Act was that every local authority would be required to provide sites for gipsy or traveller caravans. There were provisions for exemption, but basically this applied to every authority. When, in the Minister's opinion, enough pitches had been provided in any area, the authorities providing those sites might apply to the Minister to be declared designated areas and would receive powers enabling them to remove travelling caravans from unauthorised places. The concepts of the sites and the powers were inextricably linked.
The Bill was necessary because local authorities had not individually taken action. In June, 1966, the Ministry of Housing issued Circular 26/66 calling the attention of local authorities to the problem of gipsy and travelling caravans and urging, as a voluntary measure, that all authorities should act in concert to provide sites and deal with the problem. But few authorities took such action and most argued that, before they provided sites, they would like powers to remove caravans parked in unauthorised places. The argument, which was not unreasonable, was that if sites were provided without the powers, that would be a waste of ratepayers' money, because there would

be no compulsion on the travellers to use those sites, where a rent would be charged, and they would prefer to continue rent-free on unauthorised sites.
The Minister said that, on the contrary, the sites should be provided, because, if powers were granted first without the provision of sites, it was feared that unscrupulous local authorities might use them to deport the travellers and gipsies into the territory of their neighbours, which would be undesirable.
As a ratepayer in the London Borough of Bromley, which contains my constituency, I live in one of the few local authorities which has provided a site for travellers of this kind. It has cost the ratepayers of my borough £13,000. I do not object to that in itself, but I do not see why my constituents and the ratepayers in other constituencies forming part of this borough should have to cough up to provide this site if other authorities are to be able to escape what I consider to be their obligations to take their due share in providing sites to deal with this problem. Bromley is one such site, not to mention Eton and Hertfordshire and other authorities which have also provided sites.
If the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act are allowed to slip through, so that Walsall and any other places which care to follow its example can obtain powers to deport the travellers from their territories without fulfilling their obligation to provide sites, my borough will act as a haven for all those people who have been deported from other areas, and that would not be fair or proper. The whole concept of the Caravan Sites Act was based on the idea that every authority should provide its due sites and receive the necessary powers to make sure that the sites were properly used.
But there is more to it than this. We are all conscious that a major problem of gipsies and other travellers faces the whole country. The problem is particularly acute in Walsall, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton, but it is also acute in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Orpington and we too are familiar with it. The problem will not be solved simply by the use of powers to move gipsies and other travellers off unauthorised sites without at the same time providing sites to which they may


lawfully go. Powers by themselves are mere persecution and there can be no lasting solution to the problem if the remedy consists simply of moving these travellers on. That is why the Caravan Sites Act proposed sites and powers, and the two were to go together.
I am well aware that the existence of caravanning, travelling gipsy families arouses much resentment among normal ratepayers, if I may so describe them, because the average citizen pays his rates and his rent, if he lives in that kind of dwelling, and his taxes, and yet observes that other people apparently pay no rent, almost certainly pay no rates, and I take leave to doubt whether in every case they pay taxes. These people are clearly not fulfilling their duties to the community.
But I cannot think that it is proper for the vast majority of us to criticise the travellers for not fulfilling their duties if at the same time we do not make it possible for them to enjoy their rights, that is, the right to a place where they may reasonably park their caravans and live unmolested and unharassed. It is basic that rights and duties go together in this matter.
That is why I feel such deep regret about the proposals in the Bill which seek to provide Walsall Corporation with powers to move on caravans which are parked in unauthorised places. To that in itself I do not necessarily have objection; my objection is that that power is not accompanied by any necessary—and I stress "necessary"—obligation to provide a suitable number of pitches.
I deeply fear that if a succession of authorities come forward with proposals of this nature—and this evening we have a little queue of three authorities doing so—for powers, but not to provide sites, the whole concept of the Caravan Sites Act which I was glad to support, will be entirely undermined.
I join those who much regret that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has not yet seen his way to activate Part II of the Act, for that would be a solution to this problem. I do not know how far it would be in order to take this opportunity to urge this action on my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who played a leading part in our deliberations on that Act and who expressed not only the Government's

view but his own personal view that it was a wise and beneficial Act which he would like to see in full operation. I hope that he will say something today to offer some indication of hope for some declaration that in the reasonably near future we may see the activation of Part II. [Interruption.] In the absence of such a declaration—and I gather from that remark, which I did not quite catch, that I do not have much hope of hearing such a declaration this evening—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I was saying, "As soon as possible."

Mr. Macdonald: That is a remark which causes my heart to sink beneath the floor; I have heard remarks like that before. None the less, it remains a fact that a solution of the problem of gipsy travellers and other mobile caravanners is to be found in Part II of the Caravan Sites Act which the House passed with approval and very little dissent last summer.
In the absence of the activation of Part II, I cannot but describe the Bills as an attempt, perhaps unintentional, to evade what I had hoped to be provisions accepted by every hon. Member and by local authorities generally. I urge on the Government the necessity for the speedy implementation of Part II. In the meantime, we should not allow to pass three Bills of this kind which would drive a coach and horses through the admirable provisions of an Act intended to deal with the gipsy and caravan problem.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I have never heard a Bill of this length moved so cursorily as the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It is highly insulting to the House to make a speech lasting about five minutes on a Bill containing provisions fundamentally affecting the future of the citizens of Walsall in a variety of ways and of tremendous importance not only to Walsall, but the country as a whole. It would have been far more for the convenience of the House if, instead of delegating these matters to the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells) to explain at the end of the debate, the hon.


Member had given an adequate explanation at the beginning of the debate of what some of the Clauses are intended to accomplish and how the powers which it is intended to confer on Walsall Corporation are to be operated by it.
I shall give a few illustrations of the matters contained in the Bill which merit serious examination because of the general principles which they raise. Although I cannot pretend thoroughly to have studied and mastered the whole of 271 Clauses and six Schedules in the course of a few days, I have seen enough in the Bill to cause me the gravest anxiety and to cause me to suggest that if we allow corporations to pass legislation of this kind, we shall not be doing our duty, because so many of the matters with which the Bill deals are matters better considered in public legislation.
The first subject with which I want to deal is a perfect illustration of this. The second part of the Bill gives Walsall Corporation power to implement a district heating undertaking scheme.
Let me make it clear at once that I had no objection to the expansion of district heating schemes. I take the opposite view. I have always been very much in favour of them, as the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Power would be able to tell the House if he were here. I have had detailed correspondence with him on how schemes could be sustained and what machinery could be devised for local authorities to press on with them faster in terms of big educational schemes, blocks of flats and developments of that kind where the advantages of district heating could be of tremendous importance.
The possibilities are there for reducing the costs of heat to the householders who are in receipt of heat by means of these schemes, quite apart from industrial users. District heating enables us to make better use of indigenous fuels and thus improve our balance of payments by reducing the need for imported fuels. I welcome the action of the National Union of Mineworkers in this respect in granting loans to certain local authorities for putting in district heating schemes so that more indigenous fuel can be consumed and the rate of rundown in the coal industry can be arrested to some extent. I am sure that the House would approve of that as

an objective if it means less redundancy in the mines and allows Lord Robens and his colleagues more time to make arrangements for the redeployment of manpower in the industry without causing hardship.
A third and tremendously important advantage of district heating schemes is that they help to reduce pollution. In central plants of the kind operated, one can afford to put in machinery for the extraction of grit and sulphur dioxide from flues which is not possible to the same extent in individual heating installations.
I say that by way of introduction because I may have to be a little critical of the detailed provisions in this Part of the Bill. I understand that certain objections are raised to these schemes. It is suggested, for example, that the capital cost inevitably is higher than with individual heating schemes in all the schemes which have been examined so far. In addition, the gas and electricity industries may be lukewarm about district heating because they see their potential markets slipping away at a time when they have excess production capacity.
As I have said already, over the last few years I have had a lengthy correspondence with the Minister on the subject, more particularly since the Parker Morris standards for heating were made mandatory on local authorities by the Minister of Housing in his Circular 36/67 and since the new cost yardsticks were introduced.
The significance of the introduction of the Parker Morris standards was that more heat would be required per dwelling and, therefore, the economics of district heating would become even more attractive. It is laid down that in houses built today the kitchens and areas used for circulation must be capable of being heated to 55° F. and living areas to 65° F. I only wish that it had been extended to whole-house heating because, in the future, we shall regret not having proper central heating in our bedrooms, where people can, if they wish, be separate from the rest of their families. In my own family, I find that my children like to do their homework in bedrooms. Many people will find in future that we have made a mistake in not going the whole hog with Parker Morris standards and not having whole-house heating.
The Minister has stated already that district heating schemes will qualify for loan sanction even where the total capital cost, including such schemes, exceeds the yardstick plus 10 per cent., provided that it can be shown that the saving on running costs more than offsets the higher capital costs. The way is open for a more widespread use of district heating in Britain, and it may be that we shall catch up with Continental countries where this method of heating homes has been in widespread use for many years.
I believe that costs-in-use for well-designed district heating schemes can be substantially lower than those for individual heating installations. I have been supplied with some typical figures of the costs per therm for various methods of heating as at the end of 1967. For off-peak electricity, the cost was 35·5d. per therm. For coke, it was 25·5d. per therm. For gas, it was 24·6d. per therm. For oil, it was 19·8d. per therm. For anthracite it was 18d. per therm. District heating was the cheapest at 16·9d. per therm. Since then, of course, electricity and gas costs unfortunately have been increased by about 15 per cent. and extra taxes have been loaded on to fuel oils. If the same comparison were undertaken today, the cost advantage of district heating would be even more striking.
As to the objections sometimes raised by the gas and electricity industries, it is worth remembering that the demand for domestic heating is seasonal in character and has sharp daily peaks. Since it is very costly to provide marginal capacity to meet this kind of demand, the sharing of the market with district heating in the long run may even be beneficial to the gas and electricity authorities. In any event, I do not think that those authorities should plan their marketing strategies entirely on the basis of the present temporary surplus of capacity which, it is hoped, will last for only a few years.
So much for the economic background to this Part of the Bill. We must now consider whether it is desirable for the introduction of district heating to be facilitated by Private Bills of this character and whether the very provisions of this Bill have been well-designed, bearing in mind that, as far as I am aware, this is the first occasion on which powers of this kind have been sought by a local authority in a Private Bill.
I would suggest that the answer to the first question must be a definite "No" unless it is felt by hon. Members that district heating schemes will be so uncommon that few local authorities will decide to ask for similar powers. It can be seen already that that is unlikely to be the position, with these three Bills containing provisions of this kind on the Order Paper today. I fear that the result will be a patchwork of highly undesirable legislation because of the arbitrary differences in powers which may be assumed by the various local authorities seeking them, and the cluttering-up of the Statute Book which will ensue, quite apart from the not inconsiderable factor in the context of the present Parliamentary Session of the vast amount of Parliamentary time which will be consumed in examining these separate Bills when the House could easily and with much profit devote a few days to establishing legislation on a national framework.
It seems to me that we have reached a situation in the development of district heating which is not very different from the equivalent applying to pipelines at the time of the passing of the Pipelines Act, 1962. I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered that Measure. It had 21 sittings, many of them continuing throughout the night and others lasting until 3 in the morning. It was quite a contentious piece of legislation.
I have been looking at the Second Reading debate. At the time, the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) was Minister of Power. In relation to the Select Committee considering the Esso Petroleum Company Bill, he said:
There was at that time considerable feeling in the House that the Private Bill procedure was not the right procedure for a development of this kind, and in the Special Report of the Select Committee on this Bill, which was issued on 21st July, 1960, the Committee said that it was convinced that the Private Bill procedure was not the best way of safeguarding the interests of owners, lessees and occupiers where a pipeline is to be constructed. It recommended that no further Bills for the construction of pipelines should be passed by the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1962; Vol. 659, c. 447.]
It is obvious that the interests of owners, lessees and occupiers will be affected just as much where district heating schemes are promoted as where pipelines have to be constructed, if not more. Therefore, I am sure that the House will


agree that we should apply the same principle and legislate nationally to secure the orderly development of district heating on a uniform basis, having regard to the public and the private interest of the property owners, the lessees and occupiers who will be affected in one way or another by these schemes.
At this stage it is relevant for me to inquire of the promoters, having dealt with the general principles, why it was necessary for them to have these special powers conferred by Clause 9 to lay mains and to break open streets. These appear to be matters covered by the Pipelines Act, 1962. If the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells), who is to reply, will refer to Section 14 of that Act he will find that it appears to give powers for doing these things in the case of pipelines, which would apply pari passu to mains carrying hot water or steam for district heating schemes. Unless there is a good reason for not doing so, I think that the same rules which were devised by Parliament, in its wisdom, applying to pipelines conveying oil or other chemicals, should apply to pipes which will be used in association with district heating schemes to carry hot water or steam.
One great advantage of requiring local authorities to use the Pipelines Act procedure would be that detailed regulations for ensuring the safety of pipes which might be carrying steam at high temperatures and pressures could be laid down by the Minister of Power under Section 19 of that Act. From my inspection of this very long Bill—of course, I may have missed the point—I cannot find any reference to provisions about the safety of district heating mains. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman would cover that point when he winds up.
My second question on this part of the Bill raises a matter of fundamental importance. In Clause 6 the Corporation is asking to be allowed to
… erect, lay down, maintain, work and use stations … for providing, storing, transmitting, distributing and supplying heat … (including the generation of electricity)…".
I underline those last words.
Again, in Clause 10 it is asking to be allowed to
… lay down or erect electric lines and apparatus …".

I do not know whether the Walsall Corporation intends becoming a sort of miniature South of Scotland Electricity Board generating, transmitting and distributing all the electricity consumed in its area or whether these provisions have been included by some over-enthusiastic draftsman who is determined to put in everything which has occurred to him as having some potential use in every remote set of circumstances. Ploughing through the 271 Clauses and six Schedules, which appear to cover every facet of human life from the cleanliness of employees in tattooing establishments to the removal of human remains from burial grounds, one suspects the latter.
However that may be, in assuming powers to generate and distribute electricity, the Corporation seems to have overlooked that in 1947 Parliament, in its wisdom, passed the Electricity Act which transferred the functions that had formerly been carried out by the municipal undertakings to the then British Electricity Authority and to the Area Boards. If these provisions were allowed to remain in the Bill we should be putting the clock back 22 years. I asked the hon. Member for Walsall, South to say what objections have been received from the Central Electricity Generating Board and the West Midlands Electricity Board. The hon. Gentleman said that the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North would deal with this when winding up the debate. That was a highly unsatisfactory situation. It meant that hon. Members taking part in the debate would not be aware that the Electricity Boards had objected unless I had drawn it to their attention.

Mr. William Wells: Mr. William Wellsrose—

Mr. Lubbock: Fortunately, I am armed with a copy of the submissions made by the C.E.G.B., from which I intend to quote.

Mr. Wells: If the hon. Gentleman has that document and he intends to quote from it, the purpose of my intervention no longer exists.

Mr. Lubbock: I was about to quote from this rather long document. In paragraph 14 the C.E.G.B. says:
There are a number of other provisions in the Bill"—


this does not relate to Part II; these are incidental matters—
to which both of your petitioners desire to call attention, namely, Clause 80—Use of Delves Green; Clause 81—As to Reedswood Park; Clause 93—Prohibition of building until street defined; Clause 94—Prohibition of building until street formed and sewered; Clause 96—Rounding or splaying off corners at street junctions; Clause 97—Adjustment of boundaries of estates in connection with streets"—
I do not think that the House will wish me to read the whole list. That is approximately one-third of it.
Having listed all these provisions to which it wishes to make objection, the C.E.G.B. continues:
All the aforementioned provisions would enable the Corporation, or other persons, to interfere with or otherwise injuriously affect the electric lines or other apparatus and works of your petitioners laid in the public highway or other land or the access thereto for the carrying on of your petitioners' undertaking in pursuance of their statutory powers and your petitioners object thereto.
I think that the Corporation might have taken the trouble to consult the C.E.G.B. and the West Midlands Electricity Board before producing a Bill in which so many of the provisions are objectionable to those Boards.
I realise that the powers to generate electricity—I dare say that this is what the hon. and learned Gentleman will say in reply—are conditional on receiving the approval of the C.E.G.B. Since the Corporation knows that it will not get that approval, why put this in the Bill?
We derive tremendous advantage from the central generation of electricity. It has enabled us to increase substantially the size of our generating sets, which have now reached 660 mW. As a result, the capital cost per kW has decreased in real terms. Although we, as consumers, have not reaped the benefit by way of reductions in our electricity bills, we are much better off than if we had remained in the fragmented state of electricity undertakings which existed before the 1947 Act. That is why I say that the wording and the intention behind these provisions would put the clock back about 22 years.
Thirdly, I refer to Clause 15, "Power to enter premises". The hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt say that this Clause is closely modelled on the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act, 1954. The points I should like to

examine are, first, whether it is right in principle for Parliament to confer sweeping powers of this nature on an ever-widening network of public bodies and, secondly, whether these powers are necessary for the purposes of a district heating undertaking.
The Corporation is asking for even more extensive powers than the gas and electricity Boards in one respect. The proviso to Clause 15(1) implies that in an emergency an officer of the Corporation may demand entry as of right without giving any notice to the occupier and without obtaining a warrant from a magistrate. On the other hand, in the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act, 1954, Section 2(2,b) allows a magistrate to issue a warrant if admission to the premises was sought in an emergency but was refused by or on behalf of the occupier.
I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is well qualified to deal with these matters, to tell me why the Corporation should have even greater powers than are conferred on the Gas and Electricity Boards and whether, indeed, he thinks it is right that it should have equivalent powers. I think that we should limit as far as possible the rights of entry into private houses, which have already gone far enough. Any legislation which permits an extension of the number of persons who can enter my house, with or without a magistrate's warrant, I am disposed to view with disfavour. These powers are held not only by the police, but by inspectors of taxes, by officers of the Customs and Excise, by gas and electricity board officials, and no doubt by many others of whom I cannot think at the moment, and now it is proposed to allow officers of the Walsall Corporation to enter our premises to inspect the district heating apparatus, and in some cases to do so without even obtaining a magistrate's warrant. If it is necessary for certain people to be enabled to walk into one's sitting room, Parliament should keep these powers down to the absolute minimum, and should not add to the list of persons on whom these powers are conferred.
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that this matter was raised at a public meeting called in Walsall on 17th December last to discuss the Bill, and that a Motion was put to


delete the whole of Part 2 because of the objections made by one of the citizens to Clause 15 but that a majority favoured the promoters' case, but I regret to say that that meeting was not properly advertised, and therefore was not truly representative of the citizens of Walsall. Furthermore, I am reliably informed that some of the persons who were present and who voted on this issue were not local government electors in Walsall.
To sum up my remarks on Part 2, I say that this is a very inadequate prototype of the kind of national legislation that we would like to see on district heating, and that it is so wide of the mark that I cannot possibly see how a Committee upstairs can knock it into shape.
I now turn briefly to Part 4 which deals with transport, and which one would think was fairly innocuous until one studied it in some detail. I suggest that on this Part of the Bill we need considerable advice from the Minister of Transport so that we can ascertain whether the Corporation's operations of a municipal undertaking, and one of a highly specialised nature at that, will fit in properly with the objects of the 1968 Transport Act.
Over the weekend I refereshed my memory about the discussions which took place in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill on the creation of passenger transport authorities under Section 9 of the Act as it now is. I looked at an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), whose indefatigable labours in that Committee excited the admiration of Ministers and Opposition spokesmen alike.
In that debate initiated by my hon. Friend the right hon. Lady who was then the Minister of Transport explained how the P.T.A.s would cover the area of a number of local authorities and she added that they would be
closely linked to the town planning, highway planning and traffic management powers of local authorities …
At that time the right hon. Lady could not tell the Committee precisely what the boundaries of the new authorities would be, because of the need
for long and detailed consultations with local authorities … as to what they think are

the appropriate boundaries for the proper planning … in their part of the world",
but the general shape of the areas for the four big conurbations, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, and Tyneside could already be discerned by that date. These were clearly already units in transport terms, the right hon. Lady said, because they had in them people
moving freely to and from work and for recreation within a wide area of conurbation. They are also the areas where the traffic problems are at their most crucial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 7th February, 1968; c. 399.]
Since then the Order establishing the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority has come into operation—on 10th February to be exact—and under the terms of Section 18 of the Transport Act, within 12 months from that date the P.T.A. will have to prepare jointly with the Passenger Transport Executive a statement on the policies which the two bodies intend to follow, including
the planning and operation of the road passenger transport services to be provided by the Executive …
With those considerations in mind, one is bound to ask how it is possible for the West Midlands P.T.A. properly to co-ordinate throughout the West Midlands the services mentioned by the right hon. Lady in her speech upstairs, or for the P.T.E. to operate services within the area if one of the local authorities concerned unilaterally continues to function as if the Transport Act of 1968 had never been passed? There is no mention in any of these Clauses of the P.T.A. or the P.T.E., and perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain this omission when he winds up the debate. It appears to me that the Parliamentary draftsman completely ignored the 1968 Act, if indeed he was aware of its existence. If one takes the most obvious example, one finds that the Corporation is clearly determined to continue operating trolley buses with which most of the Clauses in this Part of the Bill are concerned.
If there is to be real co-ordination of the passenger transport services throughout the West Midlands, one of the first essentials is that vehicles of the same type are used in different sections of the area. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can say whether the use of trolley buses in Walsall is unique


throughout the West Midlands conurbation, but wherever these vehicles exist costly interchange facilities will be required for the use of passengers journeying onwards by ordinary diesel buses.
Nor can I believe that if these passenger transport services are to be properly linked with highway planning, town planning, and traffic management, trolley buses should continue to be operated in any part of the country, because they are highly wasteful of road space, they demand unsightly works in the streets where they operate, and they are very inflexible when it comes to meeting the needs of a mobile population. I understand that a considerable amount of new building is taking place in the West Midlands. People are moving from one area to another, which means that the existing trolley buses could within a few years, be entirely unsuitable for the needs of the population in that area. I believe, too, that properly costed trolley buses are uneconomical compared with conventional diesel buses, as nearly every other municipal transport undertaking has already discovered.
Lastly on this Part of the Bill, it looks as though passengers will be subjected to rigid military discipline if they use the Corporation's trolley buses, because under Clause 68 the Corporation
may make byelaws requiring persons waiting to enter the trolley vehicles or public service vehicles of the Corporation at any stopping place or terminus to wait in lines or queues and to enter such cars, vehicles or public service vehicles in the order in which they stood in such line or queue.
Under Clause 69 the Corporation is given power
for regulating the conduct of persons waiting to purchase tickets at any office, kiosk or other building … for regulating the conduct of persons using … public service vehicle and trolley vehicle stations, shelters and conveniencies provided by the Corporation … for prescribing the manner in which the public service vehicles and trolley vehicles operated by the Corporation are to be entered and left"—
on all fours I suppose? Is it really necessary for the Corporation to make all those regulations which are reminiscent of the kind of thing that we had to put up with during the war, though no doubt for much better reasons? Would it not be much better to leave the long-term decisions to be made by the P.T.E. as foreshadowed in Section 18(1) of the 1968 Act?
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. Member for Walsall, South, said that these powers do not expire until 31st December, 1970. The passenger transport authority will have reported by February, 1970, and I would have thought that that gave plenty of time to make the necessary adjustments to the passenger services in this area under the terms of whatever legislation existed beforehand, without bringing these new matters before the House now. That is all I wish to say on Part IV.
I now turn to Part V and to Clause 74—the use of certain burial grounds; Clause 76—the power to use burial grounds for highway purposes, and Clause 77—the removal of human remains. It is desirable to consider the national legislation on this subject and to see whether, instead of having individual Bills of this kind brought forward every time a burial ground is to be used for some other purpose, it would not be better for the Government to consider how to legislate for the whole situation.
I remember taking part in the Second Reading debate of the St. George Hanover Square Burial Ground Bill in 1964. It was decided by the church authorities that this land would be better used for housing development in London and they brought forward a Bill for the purpose. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) argued that we should not do this because Laurence Sterne was buried there, but in that case no burials had taken place in the grounds since 1854 An Order in Council had been made to cease burials there. I do not suppose there was any great objection by the friends or relations of the people whose tombs were contained in that burial ground but when I studied the matter I discovered that under the 1884 Disused Burial Grounds Act no burial ground could be used for any other purpose. No exception was made unless someone could bring forward a Private Act. The church authorities were given permission to use that land for the purposes of housing.
We now find the same thing in the Bill. The Walsall Corporation proposes to use part of these two burial grounds for the purpose of constructing highways. It is almost a case of their taking up father's ground to build a sewer. However worthy this may be I would like


the hon. and learned Member to say whether it would not be preferable, instead of dealing with this matter in a private Act, to deal with it by national legislation, which could be discussed with the Church of England and other religious authorities, so that the whole thing could proceed on a uniform basis.
Many burial grounds are no longer used for religious purposes and might be better used for the purpose of providing houses for the population or improving the road system. I am trying to facilitate this procedure. I am not trying to hinder the provisions of this part of the Bill. I have no doubt that the Walsall Corporation has a worthy object in trying to improve traffic circulation in the area, and think that it is necessary for it to obtain part of the burial grounds for that purpose.
I now come to the question raised by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald). This is why I first began to take an interest in the matter, and why I read through some of the other Clauses, apart from Clauses 116 and 117, to which I originally objected. Finding that the Corporation had taken these powers, which I found highly objectionable, it was reasonable for me to scrutinise carefully its other proposals, with some of which I have tried to help the House. But this part of the Bill is nearer my heart, because it concerns the Caravan Sites Act, 1968.
Clauses 116 and 117 relate to "moveable dwellings" which are defined as meaning
any caravan, tent, van, shed or similar structure".
In respect of the first of the Clauses the promoters have been good enough to furnish hon. Members with a statement of their motives and I cannot help thinking that it might have been for the convenience of the House—particularly bearing in mind the brevity of the hon. Member's opening speech—to have an explanation of some of the other Clauses that I have been discussing. Just because there are no Motions on the Order Paper objecting to these other Clauses does not mean that the promoters can take it that they are necessarily uncontroversial.
The promoters say that Clause 116(1) is a re-enactment of the provisions in the

Walsall Corporation Bill, 1939, and the effect of them is to make it unlawful to put a moveable dwelling—the Memorandum calls it a "moveable building", but that must be a misprint; I can only hope that the Bill itself is not so carelessly drafted as in the Memorandum—in front of a building line. If
land in the borough abutting upon a street
means land in front of the building line, that would be so. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say definitely whether those two phrases mean the same thing, but I have no doubt that there must be interpretations in the courts and, once again, I hope that when the hon. and learned Member replies he can explain whether land in the borough abutting upon a street means the same as land in front of a building line and whether the court have determined to that effect.
Subsection (2) is also a re-enactment, except that the offence is now extended to moveable dwellings placed or kept in any street. That extension overlaps the Highways Act, 1959, and will also duplicate the provisions of Section 10 of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, contrary to the assertion made by the promoters, who say that the next following subsection is the only one against which that criticism could possibly be levelled.

Mr. John Farr: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if we interpret Clause 116(2) literally it means that we cannot even momentarily park a caravan in a Walsall street? Indeed, is it not possible that a person would infringe the terms of the Bill if he parked a Dormobile in a Walsall street? Is not that vehicle used for dwelling purposes from night to night?

Mr. Lubbock: That is probably true, but I doubt whether any tourists go to Walsall. That possibility should therefore present no great problem.

Mr. Cyril Bence: Do I understand from what the hon. Member is saying—I speak as a caravanner and a member of the Caravan Club—that anyone with a house or bungalow in Walsall, being the owner of a touring caravan, could not park it on his own land by the side of his house if it happened to be in front of the building line?

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member is quite right. If he were unfortunate enough to live in Walsall he could not put a caravan in his front garden. He would have to find a space behind his house on which to station the caravan. The promoters say that this provision is a repetition of the provision contained in the Walsall Corporation Act, 1939.
Subsection (3) makes it unlawful to place any moveable dwelling on land in the borough without the consent of the owner of the land. The promoters say that this is in order to enable proceedings to be taken in cases of moveable dwellings placed on vacant land without the owner's consent having been obtained. That subsection is probably defective, because it would seem that if a person were a tenant or lessee of land and that among the conditions of his tenancy or lease was the right to station a caravan on the land, or to permit somebody else to do so, and the tenant or lessee had obtained a valid site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 and had obtained planning permission under this subsection, he would still be committing an offence. But the real objection is that this and the bit of the last Section which has been added, which refers to the parking on streets is that they duplicate Section 10 of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, which reads as follows:
In any area designated under the following provisions of this Act as an area to which this section applies it shall be an offence for any person being a gipsy to station a caravan for the purpose of residing for any period—

(a) on any land situated within the boundaries of a highway; or
(b) on any other unoccupied land; or
(c) on any occupied land without the consent of the occupier."

Although the Walsall Corporation Bill does not refer to gipsies by name, it is the gipsies at whom these provisions are directed and not the ordinary members of the travelling public, although I doubt whether it consulted the Caravan Club when drafting these provisions.
Section 10 of the 1968 Act then goes on to provide:
… it shall be a defence to prove that the caravan was stationed on the land in consequence of illness, mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency and
that the owner removed it or intended to remove it "as soon as was reasonably practicable". But, in Walsall, this defence

will be denied, so, if a gipsy who is passing through Walsall is unfortunate enough to stall in the high street, he will immediately be liable to a fine of £20 as well as to having his caravan towed away and himself left on the street looking after a broken-down vehicle and parted from his family, who no doubt will still be in the caravan. This is highly objectionable. I do not think that the House realised that no defence was provided and once this is borne home to hon. Members, I think that they will see that it is quite inhuman not to allow a person, even in an extreme emergency or mechanical breakdown, to stop for a moment on the streets of Walsall without incurring these severe penalties.
The Corporation says, correctly, that Part II of the Caravan Sites Act is not yet in force and that, in the meanwhile, they face difficulties in respect of itinerant caravan dwellers who frequently camp on vacant sites in the borough and often present a real problem. The Corporation does not expect that the Minister will make an order bringing Part II into operation "for some considerable time" and, in consequence, feels justified in asking Parliament for these further powers.
With great respect to the Corporation, this is not the right way to approach the problem. Many of us have experience of the problems which arise when we find unauthorised gipsy encampments in our own constituencies. The hon. Member for Chislehurst reminded the House that we have this in our area. I would imagine that the London Borough of Bromley has a great many more gipsies going through it than Walsall has, but we have not taken this attitude. We do not solve anything by decanting the gipsies over the border so that a neighbouring authority has to deal with them instead. There seems to be a sort of "I'm all right Jack: pull up the ladder" attitude in this Clause which might create even greater difficulties for neighbouring authorities than they already have.
This has been referred to in the case of Birmingham City Council by Councillor A. B. Kennard, who is reported, in the Birmingham Post of 28th October. 1968, as saying:
From what I understand, the City Council has said that it does not want the problem


and wants to opt out of establishing sites itself but is prepared to pay its poor relations some sum if they will take over the responsibility.
What is the difference between that and the attitude of the Walsall Corporation, which is trying to decant this problem over the borders into the county of Staffordshire? It would be interesting to know the views of the Staffordshire County Council.
As to the attitude of the Walsall Corporation generally, I would ask the indulgence of the House if I quote from a letter which I received, dated 24th January, from the Chairman of the Human Rights Year Committee in Walsall about gipsies in the area:
There are, and always have been, a goodly number of such families in this area and the Corporation have just applied to the Minister that they should be exempted from the requirements of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 when Part II takes effect, on the grounds that there is no room. That this is but a cover for discrimination against a tiny minority is not denied even by those concerned.
That criticism is well-justified.
If one looks at the amount of money spent by the Corporation over the years in harrying gipsies unmercifully as it does, one can see that it is not alive to its responsibilities. The expenditure by Walsall Corporation on unproductive methods of dealing with the gipsy problem, such as prosecutions under the Highways Act, the erection of barriers and so on in 1967–68 was £4,850. The Parliamentary Secretary would like to know that, I think, because when this matter was debated in another place recently, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that he thought that the figure for the boroughs where the problem was most severe averaged £1,500 to £2,000 a year. This figure for Walsall is nearly three times as great.
I should also like to quote from the West Midlands Planning Authority's Report on gipsies, itinerants and other travellers published in July, 1968. Referring to the Caravan Sites Act, it said:
This legislation will require a major change of attitude by many councils, but it is felt that, in the long run, the cost of settling these travellers will be much less and the results more socially postive than the present negative policy of merely moving them from one area to another.

That, of course, is true. Before I came into the Chamber, a friend of mine was telling me that he had been listening to the B.B.C. Radio 4 Midlands programme "Talking Point", in which Councillor South from Bromsgrove, one of the two West Midlands authorities which have provided sites, gave actual figures for his council's positive expenditure. He said that it had spent £4,000 for a one-acre site with 12 pitches and he criticised Walsall Councillor Ted Wainwright for Walsall's attempts to opt out and do nothing itself.
These figures, the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North can see, are significant, because it costs £4,000 in Bromsgrove to provide this site with 12 caravans, which cannot be very luxurious for that amount, I agree, but which is considerably less than the unproductive expenditure by the Walsall Corporation in a single year. We require a change of attitude by this Council so that it can live up to its responsibilities and not continually try to shunt them over the borders to make someone else suffer for them.
When one considers Clauses 116 and 117 one is bound to wonder if it is right, Parliament having passed legislation on a national basis, to permit a host of local authorities to obtain the benefits of that legislation while shouldering none of the obligations. Before the Minister designates an area as one to which Section 10 of the 1968 Act applies he must be satisfied that adequate accommodation has been provided for gipsies residing in or resorting to the area, subject to a maximum limit. County boroughs need not provide more than 15 pitches each.
So far, Walsall Corporation has provided no sites. I do not believe that it has any intention of doing so, bearing in mind what the chairman of the local Human Rights Year Committee reports. Indeed, the Corporation has asked the Minister to exempt it from the provisions of the Act, even before it has come into operation. This does not reveal a co-operative attitude.
I do not accept that the making of an order will be as long delayed as the promoters of the Bill anticipate. The Minister has already indicated that he will not give positive news of this tonight. However, when this matter was debated in another place recently the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that if


the Government could be convinced that their estimates of unproductive spending by local authorities on such purposes as the erection of harriers against gipsies, the cleaning up of mess at unauthorised sites after they have left and on prosecutions under the Highways Act, 1959, proved to be seriously on the low side, the Government would be prepared to consider bringing the date forward.
I will shortly be sending the noble Lord and the Minister the results of some inquiries which I have been undertaking among diverse groups of local authorities, not only county boroughs such as we are discussing but urban, rural districts and county councils. The noble Lord seemed to assume that gipsies were confined to the big conurbations like the West Midlands and Greater London. The figures of expenditure by county authorities such as Hertfordshire are substantial and, within the counties, urban districts are also incurring large bills.
If Clause 116 is allowed to become law, the expenditure of the County Council of Staffordshire will rise to astronomical proportions. It will be as great as it has been in Walsall. Money will not be saved if the ratepayers of another area have to spend the same sums, perhaps under different headings. When the noble Lord and the Minister have had time to study the calculations, I am sure that they will lose no time in laying an Order.
While Clause 117 does not have a particular implication for gipsies, it again shows how slipshod the Parliamentary draftsmen have been in preparing the Bill. The marginal note indicates that the provisions are a repetition of what was in the Walsall Corporation Act, 1930. Since that Act is water under the bridge, so to speak—particularly bearing in mind later legislation applying to caravans—it is obvious, from the wording of the Clause, that it has received inadequate preparation. The draftsmen must have been aware that under the 1960 Act no person may station a caravan on land unless a site licence is in force. One need only examine the Bill to find many examples of inadequate preparation by the draftsmen.
In view of the many defects in the Bill, to some of which I have drawn attention—I apologise for detaining the House for this length of time—I urge the promoters to withdraw the Measure,

to give the matter further thought and to draft another Bill which the House will not find objectionable in principle. It is clear that in Committee many of these provisions will have to be deleted. Many of them conflict with the general law which Parliament, in its wisdom, has passed. I therefore beg the promoters, even at this late stage, to withdraw the Bill and think again.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: As a rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you approve of short speeches. Indeed, you have been known to appeal to hon. Members to make their remarks brief. I can only conclude that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) had that appeal very much in mind when he initiated the debate. I should have liked to have had fuller explanation of some of the Clauses. I am thankful, however, that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) did not move the Second Reading of the Bill, otherwise we might have been here all night.
One or two Clauses affect my constituency, and here I can assure the hon. Member for Walsall, South that I am not looking for trouble. I have enough trouble locally with the Essex County Council about travellers and gipsies without taking on Walsall, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton.
An important principle is involved here if it is possible for the House to receive Bills from other local authorities which will completely cut across Parliament's intentions in the Caravan Sites Act of 1968. It would be a very sad day for Parliament if it were possible to amend legislation in such a way. I do not suggest that that is the intention of the Bill. The fault lies partly in bad drafting. The hon. Member for Orpington is an expert on travellers and gipsies, and I gather from him that in the West Midlands some local authorities are not as enlightened or progressive as others in this respect. However, it is not only the hon. Member for Orpington and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) who have a gipsy problem.
It is to the credit of my local authority The London Borough of Havering that it has already included in its estimates a sum of £40,000 to provide a caravan site, and there is every indication that it will spend more as time goes on. I had


a great dispute with the local authority, and only sold it the idea of a permanent site, slightly anticipating the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Orpington, on the basis that there would be legislation to make it incumbent on other local authorities to share the burden.
We shall run into considerable difficulty if it is now to be possible for some local authorities to shift their share of responsibility, and I hope that this will be kept very much in mind. Certain Clauses involve a very important principle, and its acceptance would make it extremely difficult for those local authorities which are doing their duty.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

8.42 p.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am grateful for your suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I might be privileged to catch your eye during the Second Reading debate on this Bill rather than wait until after its Second Reading in order to raise the question of the Instruction I set down, which I do not think at all necessary to take as a separate item of business.
By way of introductory remarks I should explain to the good citizens of Walsall that I have chosen this particular Corporation Bill for the purposes of the remarks I wish to make on the question of protection of pension rights, but I hope that the Committees which will be set up to consider the West Bromwich Corporation Bill and the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill will be so good as to reflect on the remarks I make on this particular Bill, as they are equally applicable in the case of those other corporations. I am informed that by choosing to raise this question in connection with this Corporation Bill I am not in any way delaying the progress of this Measure, which I am sure is a highly necessary one. I would not have sought to raise this matter if I felt that there were any likelihood that the consequences would be that the progress of this Bill through the House might be delayed.
Hon. Members will know mat I am interested in the whole problem of the

protection of occupational pension rights. Normally when I have spoken on this subject I have spoken of the problem of protecting occupational pension rights in industry, but the problem and principles of this matter apply just as forcibly in connection with the 800,000 people—or thereabouts—who are employed by local authorities. These principles are becoming generally accepted now as being, first, that a pension is a form of deferred pay and, secondly, a pension once earned is the employee's property. It may be that it is held for him until the time of his retirement by trustees or, as in the case we are discussing now, in a special superannuation account set up under Statute to hold the accumulated pension rights of the employees of the local authority concerned.
I believe these two principles are becoming more and more generally accepted, and rightly so. If they are, the employer has no rights over the money which is held in the fund and is ultimately the property of the employee. In this particular case, if Walsall Corporation have a dispute with one of their employees, there is no barrier to their proceeding through the courts in the normal way to recover what may be due to them. It is wrong that they should seek to hold on to the man's entitlement in the superannuation account as an extra means of exercising discipline.
I belong to a party which believes that we should work towards a property-owning democracy. That is a slogan which is accepted not only on this side of the House. The assets which a man can acquire in the course of his working life which are of the greatest value to him are probably first, his house and, secondly, his accumulated pension rights. The Government have a duty to protect the individual's assets.
I am sorry to say that lately in regard to pension rights, because of the difficulty and complexity of the subject, Governments have tended to neglect their duties in this respect. I hope that we will hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Government's general views on this matter. I hope that he will not forget that he belongs to a party in whose election manifesto it was stated that they intended to solve the problem of the protection of individual pension rights.
It is part of every citizen's self-respect that the assets which he accumulates by virtue of his work should be properly protected and recognised as his own. If we believe that every citizen has equal rights, we should not allow particular employees to be left behind their brethren in pockets of disadvantage because of the operation of obsolete Acts and Clauses.
I realise that old-fashioned concepts have survived even into the present day on the question of occupational pensions. They go back to the days when the relationship between an employee and an employer was considered to be that of servant and master, a term commonly used in old times about this relationship. One could not today talk about "master and servant" without appearing to be intolerably obsolete in one's concept of the relationship which exists in employment.
There are, however, people who will still maintain that an occupational pension has the character of some form of discretionary bonus; that it is really a gratuity, something in the nature of a tip which an employer may choose to accord to his favourite employees at the end of their service as a sign of grace. Today this is not an acceptable concept. It is increasingly recognised that it is a condition of good employment practice to protect a man's retirement, and that a good employer will do something about this and take it as a matter of course that he should do so.
There might well be room for legislation in this matter to make sure that good employers are not penalised and put at a disadvantage vis-à-vis those employers who do not feel themselves under this obligation, and who are thus able to cheapen their production costs by neglecting the long-term interests of their workers.
As a courtesy to the House and possibly as a convenience to the Committee, I should like now to read the subsection of the Local Government Superannuation Act of 1937, as amended by the Act of 1953, which is referred to in Clause 217 to which I have taken exception. I have been informed by the Library that, taking into account the Amendment in 1953, it should now read:
Where a contributory employee of an employing authority ceases to be employed

by them in consequence of an offence of a fraudulent character, or ceases to hold it in consequences of grave misconduct, being such an offence or such misconduct in connection with the performance of the duties of, or otherwise in relation to his employment and is not entitled to any benefit under regulations made under subsection (2) of section one of the Local Government Superannuation Act 1953, the employing authority may, if they think lit, direct the return to him out of the appropriate superannuation fund of a sum equal to the whole or a part of the aggregate amount of his contributions to the fund, or, if he ceased to be employed in consequence of such an offence of a fraudulant character as aforesaid the payment out of that fund of an equivalent sum to his wife or family.
I recognise that in extending my campaign to protect men who have lost their jobs as a result of an offence of a fraudulent character or grave misconduct I possibly have not chosen the most sympathetic of all the victims of the different types of pension disentitlement. Nevertheless, it is the one that arises on this Clause. The principles apply, and the man's rights remain the same, whether or not he has proved himself to be capable of gross misconduct or fraud.
I recognise, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) pointed out, that the deletion of the Clause will not automatically thereafter give protection to those whose rights should be protected. A hard-faced borough treasurer, if such a person ever were to be appointed in Walsall, might conceive that he could achieve the same effect as he could under the proposed Clause 217 simply by leaving the man's contributions in the fund when he left the authority's service and by making a corresponding reduction the following year in the amount the local authority had to put into the superannuation fund by way of topping up. Thus within a short time the corporation could be back where it was, even if the hon. Member for Kensington, South had not made the remarks he is making tonight.
There is no question but that if we are to succeed in giving full protection to local government employees in regard to their pension rights a new Act is needed and is, indeed, long overdue. I regret that it may have to wait for the return of a Government who are sympathetic to the protection of the property rights of underdogs. I acknowledge that too, as was pointed out to me in the proceedings on the York Corporation Bill, the common


law makes it possible for salary not yet paid—but earned—to be retained by an employer in the event of similar circumstances arising to those envisaged here. However, I think that the circumstances are not quite the same and that we need not be deflected from our purpose by the analogy with salary. After all, a pension right may have been earned as a result of transactions often long completed. In every case, money standing in the superannuation fund on behalf of an employee is there only in relation to service which has been completed.
It is particularly repugnant that a local authority should have a direct right to forfeit a man's own contributions. I do not wish necessarily to differentiate sharply between money paid into a fund by the man himself out of his earnings and money paid into a fund by the employer in respect of that man's work. I think that often the distinction between the two is too arbitrary and that the matter needs further examination. But there is an emotional feeling, which everyone must share, against a powerful authority having the right to take hold of a man's contributions which he himself has subscribed to a superannuation fund for himself and for his widow and children. Under the 1937 Act wife and family also have claims which are recognised—miserably small though they are under the normal conventions of local government Acts. They presumably have not been guilty of fraud even if the head of the household has been convicted of it. If he has lost his job and has suffered a conviction, why should they be made to suffer further by the financial hardship which must inevitably follow if the local authority chooses to exercise its right to forfeit the man's own contributions in the pension fund as well as the contributions which the authority itself has made?
In conclusion, therefore, I ask the Committee to reflect on two considerations. By deleting Clause 217, it will encourage the Walsall Corporation, and, I hope, other local authorities which take note of what is said here, to exercise the discretion granted to them under the 1937 and 1953 Acts in the most generous possible sense, bringing themselves in so doing up to date voluntarily with the progress of public opinion on this subject.

Second, I hope that, if the Clause is deleted in Committee, we may be able to take pride in the fact that the House will not have passed in 1969 a Bill perpetuating an offensive, obsolete and unjust provision which would confer on a great local authority the power to appropriate the private property of one of its employees and simply to put it shamelessly into the general rate fund.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: My purpose in intervening is to direct attention to Clauses 116 and 117, my principal concern being with Clause 117(1)(a):
No movable dwelling used or intended to be used for human habitation shall be placed or kept on any land situate within the borough without the previous approval of the Corporation.
In the last 30 years, there has grown up in this country from small beginnings a large industry and leisure activity in caravanning and camping. I declare my interest here in that I am a member of the Camping Club of Great Britain and Ireland and also of the Caravan Club. Both clubs will be interested in the provisions of these two Clauses. I am sure that I speak on behalf of both clubs when I say that we are grateful to successive Governments for what they have done to encourage more people, particularly young people, to take their holidays in Britain—and in Ireland, too, for our clubs cover Ireland as well.
The important point here is that, if one lives in one of the conurbations, one must keep a caravan or a tent trailer at one's home. If one lives in the country, one can arrange with a farmer to park it on his farm, but in town the only place is alongside one's home. I have had a caravan for some years. I have it parked alongside my bungalow in Somerset where I live now, and in Glasgow, when I lived there, I parked it alongside my home. When I wanted to go off into Scotland, I just hitched the caravan to my car and away I went; and I can do the same now at my other home.
As a result of the encouragement given in legislation by successive Administrations, as I have said, more and more young people with families are taking to caravanning and camping, particularly in this country, since the Continent is now


such an expensive place to go to, but if borough councils and county councils bring in legislation with such provisions as the one I have quoted, any individual will be prohibited from parking a caravan or camping trailer alongside his home. I include the camping trailer because the definition of a mobile dwelling would cover a folding trailer which can be used for human habitation.
I take it from the Clause that without the corporation's consent no one in the Borough of Walsall would be able to keep on his own land such a camping trailer, which one would use only for habitation purposes when one had towed it to an approved caravan site. If other boroughs start doing the same thing, no one will be able to keep such a trailer on his own land without the local authority's consent.
I do not use my caravan as a habitation where it stands alongside my bungalow, but only when I have towed it to a recognised caravan site. But the Clause says
No moveable dwelling used or intended to be used …
I do not intend using my caravan as a dwelling alongside my house, but, as I read the Clause, if I lived in Walsall I would have to dispose of it or find somewhere in Staffordshire or Warwickshire where I could keep it on a farm or similar place. This cuts across the whole intention of the Caravan Sites Act.
A further problem could arise if a family living, say, in London travelled to the Lake District or the Yorkshire moors and dales and arrived in Walsall with a caravan. According to the Caravan Sites Act, anyone with land can permit caravans to be sited, up to a limit of three in one area, for not more than 28 days without a licence. But the Borough of Walsall cuts right across that, and says that if one's car breaks down in Walsall one cannot park the caravan anywhere there while the car is being repaired. If other boroughs start doing the same it will be a serious matter for the caravan industry and those who have taken to caravanning as a form of holiday. I hope that my interpretation of the Clause is wrong.
I do not know whether Walsall Corporation got in touch with the Caravan Club, the caravan manufacturers' organisations and the Camping Club of Great

Britain and Ireland when it drafted the Clause. I hope that if the Bill comes before a Committee the corporation will obtain the observations of those bodies on the effect of such legislation by local authorities on the general recreational activity of caravanning.
As I see it, if I decided to move my residence from Somerset to Walsall I would have to dispose of my caravan, because I could not park it anywhere in Walsall, although I would not live in it but just keep it for recreational purposes The Clause says that even if I am not going to use it there but have intent to use it—and it does not say where—I shall not locate it without the consent of Walsall Corporation. This means that the councillors and aldermen of the borough can flout national legislation permitting the siting of not more than three caravans for a period of not more than 28 days without the need to obtain a site licence, by introducing a private Measure, and can deny the citizens of Walsall the benefit that has been given to the citizens of the United Kingdom outside. That is local autonomy going too far.
The corporation should reconsider the matter and consult the two well-known and well-organised bodies that I have mentioned, which own camping sites all over the United Kingdom and in Eire; both clubs have many sites in Eire. Hundreds of thousands of young people are taking up camping and caravanning. There is an enormous growth of the use of the camping trailer, which is included in the definition of mobile dwelling in the Clause. Walsall Corporation should reconsider the Clause and make an appropriate Amendment permitting the caravan owner to keep it on land adjacent to his house, not for residential purposes, but in readiness for the recreational purposes for which it is used on holidays.
I hope that Walsall Corporation will get in touch with the two clubs, clear up the situation and reassure caravanners that, if they happen to go to live in Walsall, they will not have the frightful problem of what to do with their caravans when not using them for recreational purposes.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: It may be thought that hon. Members on both


sides are perhaps paying rather detailed attention to this Bill but I share some of the misgivings which have been expressed. This is a very long Bill, with 271 Clauses. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) raised an important point about caravans to which I shall refer later.
Until recently, I had a more or less implicit faith in Private Bills. It was only a few weeks ago, when the Welland and Nene River Authority deposited its Bill, which had a Second Reading, relating to the provision of a large reservoir for Rutland, that I learned that sometimes Private Bills are not all they appear to be. That Bill had more than 50 Clauses relating to provisions which may or may not be necessary for the reservoir. But there were two small Clauses in it which had nothing to do with the reservoir but nevertheless introduced a doubtful principle.
We have a mass of material in the Walsall Corporation Bill and the other two Bills we are to discuss tonight. I wonder whether it is necessary for Parliament to be troubled with Clause 64, for example, which would give the Corporation power to provide cloakrooms and charge for admission. Is it necessary for Parliament to be troubled with Clause 108, which would give the corporation power to provide escalators? Is it necessary for the Corporation to obtain power from Parliament for Clause 128, which provides a penalty of £10 for the wretched people living in Walsall every time they throw a toffee paper into one of the streams within the borough boundary? Surely some—indeed, the majority—of these Clauses are quite unnecessary to trouble this House with.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), in a lucid and apt speech, phrased his objections as being general. But those of us who have shared his interest in caravans and caravanning since his Caravan Sites Act, 1968—which he piloted through so ably—could not help feeling that the Act would be the backbone of his objection. So it proved.
Clauses 116 and 117 cause me to stress my objection. The hon. Member said that in the Bill there is something for everyone and that every eventuality one can envisage has been put down. He is wrong. One thing which the corporation

has not thought of is the desirability of establishing a site for itinerants on which they can put their caravans. Yet this is one of the things it should have thought of in the first instance. There is no mention of it, however.
Stressing his objections to Clauses 116 and 117, the hon Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) gave us the interesting example of his borough which, under the Caravan Sites Act, had provided a site for itinerants at a cost of £13,000.

Mr. Macdonald: I should have made it clear that the borough council was fortunate in that it already owned the land and that the cost of the land was not included in that figure.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for that intervention. Nevertheless, this local authority was sufficiently energetic and sensible to do something about the problem. He pointed out that in Walsall, Bromwich and Wolverhampton there was no intention to do anything of the sort.
My objection rests upon the fact that my constituency in Leicestershire is fairly close to these three boroughs. If the itinerants are driven out of those boroughs, they will have to go somewhere else, and they will go into neighbouring local authority areas and neighbouring counties, and extra pressure will be put on those authorities to provide sites for itinerants coming from Walsall. This will spread through the East Midlands. Why should Leicestershire have to provide for itinerants driven out of Midlands industrial boroughs by legislation like this when those boroughs will not shoulder their own responsibilities and expenses? Why should Leicestershire do it for them?
As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, in Leicestershire we have a major problem with itinerants. I have had a number of meetings with authorities in my constituency and we have tried to solve some of the difficulties. I have been in touch with the police, who are more forceful at some times than others, and I have frequently been in touch with Leicestershire County Council. A letter which I received from it the other day is very illuminating and has a bearing on these Clauses.
Replying to my letter asking the county council to provide sites for itinerants


instead of having the police move them on, for there are large numbers in Leicestershire and elsewhere in the Midlands, the county council said that it was reluctant to implement its powers under the Caravan Sites Act because it felt that if it were to do so, it would merely provide sites for itinerants from neighbouring counties and that itinerants would flock into Leicestershire from Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire, at the expense of the ratepayers of Leicestershire.
If that is to be the answer of every local authority and authorities like Walsall introduce legislation like this, washing their hands of the whole problem complete and utter nonsense will be made of the whole business. The hon. Member for Orpington was absolutely right—it is not good enough for the Minister to say that he does not know when he is to introduce the Statutory Instruments to implement Part II of the Caravan Sites Act.
I feel sure that the Minister would be spurred into action if only he would come to Leicestershire soon, possibly before he answers the letter which I wrote to him in this connection at the end of last month. If he saw some of the places by the roadside where gipsies and tinkers have stayed, he would be as appalled as I am at the terrible and disgraceful conditions in which these wretched people live. In Leicestershire, there are what can only be called "sores" where groups of itinerants have gathered in the most abject conditions that one can imagine. There is no sanitation available and, with the approaching warm weather, the health hazards are considerable. Education among them is nil, because no one goes to see that their children attend schools. I realise that I am describing a scene which is repeated in many other parts of the country. The eyesores which are caused where these itinerants have camped have to be seen to be believed. Great lumps of litter are left by the roadside, composed of old motor car chassis, pram chassis, bottles, papers and tins. If the Minister could see some of these places, I feel that he would not say that he was not sure when he would implement his powers under Part II of the Caravan Sites Act. He would do it right away.
It is the actions of local authorities like Walsall, who are dodging the column and trying to evade their responsibilities, which make it even more imperative that the Minister takes early action. I do not blame the itinerants on these sites for the conditions in which they live. In my view, they are the last people to be blamed. I have great sympathy with them in their plight. The responsibility is a joint one, and it rests upon the shoulders of the local authorities in whose areas they dwell, who are evading their responsibility under the Caravan Sites Act of 1968, and it rests just as much on the shoulders of the Minister and his Department for failing to introduce the statutory powers which they are able to do under the Act.
It is now eight years since the Caravans Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960 was introduced. In 1968, we had the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Orpington. That again took a small bite at the subject and left the initiative with the Government. When will the Government govern and do something about the problems facing us, and this one in particular?
This Bill will exclude itinerants completely from Walsall. Recently, very large numbers of itinerants have been flocking into Leicestershire. I am told that the reason is that the police in the adjacent county of Warwickshire have developed recently what is called a "hard" policy towards itinerants. As a consequence, they have poured into the adjacent counties. I understand that Leicestershire at the moment is following a fairly "soft" policy. Itinerants are not being bullied and moved on too soon. However, that policy has to be changed rapidly in view of the large numbers flooding into the county.
What is to happen in Staffordshire if Walsall, Wolverhampton and West Bromwich ban itinerants completely and if other city and borough authorities copy their example? Does the Minister know the views of the Staffordshire County Council? If he does not, I would suggest that he ought to obtain them quickly. The Minister pays real attention to what some of us say now and again. I know that if he found them out he would be surprised to find that they did not share the support for the Bill which has been stressed by some hon. Members.
On 1st March I asked the Minister a number of Questions relating to the Caravan Sites Act, 1968. In particular, I asked him,
if he will list by name those local authorities, as defined in the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, who have as yet not exercised their statutory powers to provide accommodation for gipsies as they have been empowered so to do by legislation enacted by Parliament".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 37.]
The Minister found it much easier and shorter to describe instead those local authorities which had taken action. They included 27 sites for itinerants by 25 local authorities.
In the whole of the East and West Midlands only two sites are provided: one in Spilsby, Lincolnshire, and the other, as it happens, in Staffordshire in the urban district area of Aldridge and Brownhills. Is this fair on the Urban District Council of Aldridge and Brown-hills? What will happen if the Bill is implemented? Why should the ratepayers in Brownhills—I have passed through it on the A5 and it does not look to me a very prosperous area—enlarge their existing itinerant site which they have provided because the bigger towns in the same county have taken no action?

Mr. William Wells: I represent the Brownhills part of the Aldridge and Brownhills urban district and the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) represents the Aldridge part. I have received no representations from the Aldridge and Brown-hills Urban District Council, from any ratepayer in Brownhills, or from the Staffordshire County Council on this matter. From my experience, if they had any feelings on this matter I know that I should have heard of them.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention. I take it that he has approached these relevant authorities to find out.

Mr. William Wells: No.

Mr. Farr: Then I do not know how the hon. and learned Gentleman expects to reply to a debate in this House, having constituency interests in this area and knowing that this is a lengthy Bill which is likely to occupy Parliament for some time. It is quite remarkable.

Mr. William Wells: If the hon. Gentleman knew more about Parliamentary procedure he would understand the reason. Contact between the Aldridge and Brown-hills Council and myself—and I do not doubt that the same applies to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid)—is frequent and continuous. If it considers that it has a proper interest to represent it will do so by the appropriate methods. The hon. Gentleman, not alone in the course of the debate, has confused the procedure one would expect to be followed on a public Bill with that followed on a Private Bill.

Mr. Farr: I should be surprised if tomorrow the hon. and learned Gentleman does not receive a long and irate telegram from the authorities concerned.

Mr. Lubbock: Now that these matters have been drawn to the attention of residents in these areas, since no doubt they will be able to read what has been said in the debate, they will wake up to find with a nasty shock that the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells) and the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) have given them something that they did not anticipate. The expenditure involved by the influx of gipsies into other areas, consequent on being driven out of Walsall, will make things uncomfortable for people living in those areas.

Mr. Farr: That is a matter which I have no doubt the developments of the next few days will determine. I should not be surprised if something of that nature occurred.
I shall not be surprised, either, if many local authorities, once they see that Walsall can get away with this, and particularly with Clauses 116 and 117, decide that it is much cheaper to do things this way instead of spending as the Chislehurst authority did, about £13,000, or £40,000, which is what it cost one Essex authority. They will decide that it is much cheaper to introduce a Bill containing two or three Clauses and shrug off one's responsibilities by saying, "I am all right Jack", and pass the buck to somebody else. I shall do my best to stop the Bill going through unless these two Clauses are excluded.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This Bill is one of a group of five which arise out


of the creation of the Warley County Borough by the West Midlands Order, 1965. The four other Bills relate to Warley, Dudley, West Bromwich, and Wolverhampton. All five Bills are exceptional in size and in purpose. The promoters have deliberately set out to write local government codes for five Midlands boroughs, and in doing so they have clawed from the past local statutory provisions going back more than 100 years.
In many ways these Bills are by no means in modern form when they cover subjects familiar to up-to-date legislation. And even apart from form, in substance many of the provisions are surely out of date. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) called the provisions relating to superannuation offensive, obsolete and unjust, and this may be true in the context of modern thoughts and modern legislation on that subject.
We are accustomed to considering Private Bills which deal with some specific matter on which a local authority has found that under modern conditions it needs some new power. The majority of the 53 Private Bills before the House this Session are of that type. For some good reason a local authority finds that modern conditions make a requirement for some new powers, but suddenly, with these five major Bills, each of about 270 Clauses, and between six and ten Schedules, the fact is drawn to our attention how these several separate powers have accumulated over the years.
One wonders whether it is right to go on with that sort of procedure. Surely the time has come to consolidate and codify more of this local government law so that we do not have five boroughs writing a new code of law for themselves? This is not just a matter of taking a specific power because modern conditions require it for a walkway or something of that kind. We are accustomed to that, but here we are faced with complete codes.
The promoters say in their statement that the intention is to provide
for the re-enactment of such of the existing powers that they have so far as those powers are still appropriate and at the same time to make these apply throughout each of the boroughs.
To that extent my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid)

was correct in saying that this was a consolidation Bill, but the promoters go on to say that the purpose is also
to enact further provisions which they consider of value to the local government of the boroughs and in some cases to modify the enactments proposed to be re-enacted to meet present-day conditions.
Indeed, I glanced through the Bill to see whether there were any unprecedented Clauses, and found that quite a number have been introduced into this Bill. Clause 108—power to provide travelators; Clause 109—control of subways; Clause 112—sanitary conveniences; Clauses 118, 119, and 155; Clause 238—tyre air-pressure gauges; Clause 239—civic restaurant; Clause 247—prohibition of leaving polythene and other bags at houses, and Clause 252—power to test and verify meters—are all unprecedented Clauses. They may be very desirable, but they are slipped into a Bill of 270 Clauses and it is very difficult for an hon. Member to track them down.
The draftsman has conveniently put in the margin little notes telling us where various Clauses have come from, but many Clauses do not have such a marginal note. Precedented Clauses from other private legislation are now being introduced into this code. We are presented with something quite out of the ordinary in these five Bills, and especially in this one. It shows that the time has come to think seriously about dealing with all these matters by way of a general public Statute.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), to whom the House must be indebted tonight for his hard work in studying the Bill and bringing certain matters to our notice, mentioned particularly the district heating Clauses in Part I. Surely they should now be in a public Statute. This process will develop in the future and the House ought to consider its incorporation very soon in a public Statute. The hon. Member mentioned burial grounds and transport matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South mentioned superannuation. These require careful study against recent legislation.
In some cases the provisions contained in the Bill have been overtaken by general legislation. Although we are talking about 270 Clauses I understand that


many of them are coming out. Part XII, Part XIII and Part XIV, which contain nearly 30 Clauses, will be withdrawn, together with about six others which are being overtaken by legislation such as that contained in the Housing Bill, which the House is now considering. Other Parts ought to have been overtaken by the introduction of legislation concerning caravans, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Orpington and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). These provisions should have been overtaken by those contained in the Caravan Sites Act being brought into operation.
This is surely a matter that the House ought to deal with on a national basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough showed clearly that adjoining constituencies, boroughs or areas will suffer. If it were applied, the Caravan Sites Act would deal with the subject. It is a national Statute. To deal with the matter piecemeal, as the Bill endeavours to do, will cause suffering and hardship to adjoining areas.
The Bill shows something of a failure or even a collapse in our procedure for private legislation. It certainly shows a failure of the House to codify and consolidate local government law in this respect soon enough. We are now being overtaken by these massive Bills because we have not paid attention to the consolidation of local government law.

9.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Perhaps it is convenient for me to intervene briefly now with such advice as I can tender the House because I want to allow adequate time for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. William Wells) to reply to the points made in the debate. I think that is the fair course.
I sympathise with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I agree that there exist a number of matters where national legislation is and ought to be the answer. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) mentioned burial grounds and the problems involved with them, for example, and this I think is a matter which

should be dealt with nationally. We have thought a great deal about it and are laying the basis of legislation. But, of course, we have the great difficulty, which has existed for many years for Administrations of both parties, in that there is never enough time for this kind of, perhaps rather pedestrian, legislation—pedestrian but nevertheless vital. This led to the kind of difficulty which the hon. Member for Orpington pinpointed in relation to gipsies. However, we have made a beginning in such matters by the introduction of the Redundant Churches Bill.
With the Walsall Corporation Bill, we are dealing with a backlog of what has happened in a special case where a number of authorities were amalgamated under the West Midlands Order. They were given five years in which to sort out the complex private legislation which had applied to them in the past. They were to consider what was imperative for them to retain, in order to administer their areas wisely after 1970, and what could be dropped.
Having approved the West Midlands Order, the House is therefore under some obligation to see to it that these authorities are able to carry out the great responsibilities which Parliament is continually putting upon them. They themselves are helping to ensure this by bringing forward certain proposals to the House. That does not mean that the Bill and others should not be closely scrutinised in Committee, particularly following the reports which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and other Ministers concerned will provide for the benefit of the Committee. As I have said, I think that we are under some obligation here and I hope that the House will take it into account when deciding its attitude.
The hon. Member for Orpington referred to district heating. National legislation in relation to this matter already exists in the Housing Acts. If an authority wishes to supply premises outside its perimeter, it requires statutory authority. I remind the House that nothing which a local authority does in this country has validity unless it has a Statute behind it. This principle will be examined in the Royal Commission's Report on Local Government, but the fact remains that unless there is statutory authority


a local authority cannot do anything. If an authority wants to take a district heating pipe under a highway, it must have statutory authority. We must, of course, consider whether this is really necessary or whether there is a more appropriate way of dealing with such problems. But already about 50 authorities have district heating powers and these have not given rise to great difficulties. I remind the House that one of these authorities is the City of Westminster.
Again, in relation to transport, certain provisions will be required by the authority for carrying out its responsibilities locally. Provision is in the Bill for certain transport undertakings. Negotiations about transport are going on. When appropriate orders are made transferring functions to the new transport authorities, perhaps parts of this Bill will become redundant and can be dropped or brought into line with the general provisions of the Transport Act.
The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) made an interesting speech and dwelt particularly on the provisions relating to the pensions fund. As he pointed out, the main authority is the 1937 Act, Section 10(4) of which deals with persons who have committed an offence, particularly fraud. In that event the relevant authority is given discretion, in certain cases, to pay part of the contributions which remain in the fund to the family. Clause 217 merely gives authority to the authority to transfer any part which is not given to the family, to the general rate fund out of the superannuation fund. Should these provisions be approved, the Clause in its present form would not prejudice any discussion of the general pension scheme. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Kensington, South has taken a great interest in this matter.
In commenting on the provisions relating to gipsies, I admit at the outset that we find ourselves in some difficulty. The hon. Member for Orpington dealt with this matter comprehensively—he will appreciate that the Government wish to co-operate in the closest possible way on this issue—and pointed out, in relation to the suggestion that there should be greater power to deal with gipsies, that provision had been nationally made for tackling this problem.
In suggesting that it would be wrong at this stage for authorities to obtain private Acts to prevent the unauthorised camping by gipsies, the hon. Gentleman expressed sentiments which find a ready echo in my heart. However, I suggest to him that in this case the authorities are going further because they are taking powers which, if approved, would sidestep the requirements of the relevant legislation, which requires them to provide sites where caravans can be stationed.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Orpington will allow the Bill to go into Committee—these comments apply equally to the other Measures we shall be discussing—when he hears what I have to say on the topic. My right hon. Friend has it in mind to suggest to the appropriate Committee in his reports that the caravan provisions should not be allowed—

Mr. Lubbock: Hear, hear.

Mr. Skeffington: —or, if the Committee decides to the contrary, that the provision should be limited by the requirement that the provisions should be allowed in the Bill only on the understanding that sites are first prepared and that the provisions would lapse when Part II of the Caravan Sites Act comes into operation.
Hon. Members will appreciate that it is difficult for me to tell the House what will be in the reports which my right hon. Friend will make, since he has not yet made them. It is right that I should inform hon. Members of what he has in mind, taking account of the national legislation which exists on this subject. Thus, if the Measure is allowed to proceed to Committee, that is the way in which my right hon. Friend would propose to handle the matter. I hope that this information will be of assistance to the hon. Member for Orpington in deciding his attitude towards the Bill.
My position is to give advice. I am conscious of the need of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North to have ample time in which to reply to the points that have been made. I will only add that I urge the Bill should be given a Second Reading. That will enable the necessary functions to continue after 1970. Local Acts are still required, although careful scrutiny must


be given to all provisions in such Measures, and particularly to those applying to caravans, and I hope that that scrutiny will proceed along the lines I have suggested. I therefore hope that the provisions to which I have referred will be dropped from the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: There is an old story which will be familiar to some hon. Members and which may be true. It is about a Private Bill which was presented to the House last century, before the Matrimonial Causes Act. A provision in one of its schedules declared that the town clerk of whatever the borough was should be divorced. This Bill, I am glad to say, contains no provision for terminating the matrimonial relationship of the town clerk, but it contains nearly everything else. I echo very much what has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about the desirability of dealing with a number of the subjects covered by the Bill by national rather than by Private Bill legislation.
Having said that, I must correct certain criticisms made of the way in which the hon. Baronet, the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) moved the Second Reading. Neither he nor I is the Minister in charge of the Bill or the Minister who has settled the policy, nor is either of us counsel retained to argue the Corporation's case. We are Members of Parliament who happen to have a particular interest in the Bill and a particular duty in regard to it, and that is all.
I have a good deal of sympathy with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The transport provisions need very careful scrutiny. I agree with some of the hon. Member's comments about district heating, a subject of which he obviously has a great and extensive knowledge. Although these may not be the best possible Clauses for the purpose, and although powers of this kind would much better be provided by way of general legislation, are the inhabitants of Walsall to be deprived of the advantage of district heating because that general legislation has not come forward? My answer to that question is a confident "No".
The hon. Gentleman questioned the necessity of the powers of entry. I would only say to him, first, that other authorities engaged in similar tasks have found it necessary to have such powers and, secondly and more importantly, this is eminently the kind of question which should be considered in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail in all his criticisms of the provisions of this very detailed Bill. The more one develops a detailed argument, the more one comes to the conclusion that these are matters that ought to be considered very carefully in Committee. The House in general, and the inhabitants of Walsall in particular, have heason to be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the care he has taken on their behalf. One hopes that his criticisms will be very carefully considered at the appropriate time.
Most attention in this debate has been focused on Clauses 116 and 117. Walsall Corporation will no doubt take note that, of the speeches made from both sides of the House, not one has been in defence of those Clauses as they stand. When the Bill goes into Committee, as I hope it will, I ask that the background of this question shall be fully considered. I do not know whether it affects the other Corporations presenting similar proposals in the same way, but Walsall is a town in which open spaces are very limited. If responsible people in Walsall consider that with the urgent claims for housing and for adequate playing fields authorities with more adequate resources of space could shoulder responsibility for tinkers, gipsies or travellers, that view should be considered carefully, not against a background of emotive phrases about Walsall trying to get rid of its responsibilities. Walsall Corporation's main responsibilities are to the people of Walsall. If hon. Members who have spoken in this debate had seen what I have seen of the behaviour of tinkers, travellers and gipsies they might approach this problem slightly differently. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Orpington laughs. I wonder whether he would have laughed if he had witnessed a scene I saw two or three years ago. A body of tinkers had been allowed on to a piece of open ground in the middle of a housing estate in my constituency. They had taken their ponies there, which they had


every right to do, but there are no rights without duties.
The tinkers showed no consideration for the people in the area. The ponies were not tethered, they were allowed to roam about on the estate. They damaged fences and gates and made a great mess of gardens on which my constituents pride themselves. I could give many examples of the reckless disregard by these people for the rights of others of my constituents, though I have no knowledge of their behaviour elsewhere.

Mr. Lubbock: I am amused that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to be aware that both the hon. Member for Chislehurst and myself have had this problem for a great many years, probably to a far greater extent than it has affected the people of Walsall.

Mr. Wells: If the hon. Gentleman has had that experience, he should approach in a slightly more tolerant way the action of the Walsall Corporation in putting forward these Clauses.

Mr. Macdonald: I hope that neither the hon. Member for Orpington nor myself has been intolerant in this matter. Our approach has been that the council of which our constituencies form part has played its due part in solving the problem. It appeared to us that Walsall Corporation was not playing its due part. We do not expect it to do more than its share. The point we were making was that it was bearing none of its share.

Mr. Wells: I make no complaint about my hon. Friend or the way in which he has presented his argument. I am only trying to present the problem as it appears to the promoters of the Bill and to a large sector of the public in Walsall. There are other people in Walsall who take a different view. A distinguished body of clergy representing several denominations signed a letter of protest against the stand taken by the corporation. Their views are as deserving of attention as are those of the corporation, but it is the corporation's responsibility to look after the interests of people in the borough, which is not the responsibility of other people, however distinguished they may be.
Technically the Clauses are indefensible. If they re-enact the law of the land, they are superfluous; if they are contrary

to the general law, then they are wrong. One cannot accept such a situation.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill [Lords], and on the Walsall Corporation Bill, the West Bromwich Corporation Bill and the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Concannon.]

Orders of the Day — WALSALL CORPORATION BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: I was saying that it would be wrong for the law to be one thing in Walsall and another in the rest of the country. There is the intervening period before Part II of the Caravan Sites Act comes into force for which provision must be made. I accept what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said. I only express the hope that when the Minister deals with the matter he will do so in a sense which takes account of the conditions in Walsall and that some provision will be made for containing this very difficult problem during the time that may intervene before Part II of the Caravan Sites Act comes into effect.
Though this is no defence for the wording of the Bill, I do not think that in practice my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) would find any difficulty about his trailer; but I accept that the Clauses as drafted will place in a very grave predicament a passerby in Walsall who happens to have a caravan with him. I do not defend the Clauses as they stand. Much of the Bill's drafting must be put right, and of no part of the Bill is this more true than of Clauses 112, 116 and 117.
The Bill is necessary to bring up to date the Private Bill legislation in relation to the reconstituted Borough of Walsall. The borough had five years after the West Midlands Order was made to


put this side of its house in order. It has not much time left. It is urgently necessary for it to proceed. Even the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will concede that much of what is in these Bills is desirable in principle. Let the Bill have its Second Reading and be revised in Committee. Then, if necessary, the House can look again at the Bill as a whole when it comes up for Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: The issues raised on this Bill have already been fully canvassed before the House, and this is not a matter on which it would be appropriate for me to detain the House for long.
On most of the questions of which I have to speak, the situation is shared by West Bromwich in common with Walsall, save for one important distinction. The whole matter arises from the West Midlands Order of 1965, an egg from which there hatched a variety of problems in the West Midlands. Briefly, that Order amalgamated several authorities into five county boroughs. Many of the activities carried on by those authorities were under local Acts, but these applied only to the local authorities which now no longer exist, so that we should, if nothing were done, be left with an administrative vacuum.
Article 51 of the Order deals with the matter in this way. It provides that those Acts shall continue to apply to the areas to which they formerly applied or to the new authorities in which they are incorporated until 31st December, 1970. At that moment, Cinderella will lose her clothes, and, unless she makes other provision, she will go naked to the conference table. [Laughter.] For hon. and

right hon. Members opposite who do not live in the area, it may be a matter of some frivolity, but it is not entirely a matter of levity for those who do.
If we are left with no statutory powers after December, 1970, the West Bromwich Corporation will have to resort to the general powers in a number of local government Acts. The House knows how few local authorities succeed at present in conducting their affairs purely under the powers in general Acts. It would mean that, for example, Wednesbury market would have to close. Wednesbury market has existed from the days when a royal charter was conferred upon the lords of the manor of Wednesbury. It is a market in which I bought my toy animals as a child, and it is very dear to the hearts of the people who take advantage of it. If there is no legislation, there will be inconvenience for everyone, and rather more than inconvenience for the residents of West Bromwich.
I turn now to the matter which engaged the principal attention of the House in the earlier debate. In this Bill it arises on Clause 75, which provides that the consent of the corporation shall be required to the placing of any movable dwellings in a public place. It is a provision to control the movement of caravan dwellers. I say at once to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) that at one time I shared in substantial measure their reservations about this Bill. However, I am sure that they will agree that this is not a problem on which it helps to be heated or dogmatic.
In the overcrowded residential areas of the Black Country, residents who wake to find caravan dwellers literally touching their garden walls can, perhaps, be understood, if not always excused, if they do not rush out to welcome the newcomers. It is a situation fraught with difficulties for everyone. Sometimes, the caravan dwellers behave so as to endear themselves to the local community. Sometimes they do not. Even when there is maximum tolerance and sympathy on both sides, in situations where there is no running water and no toilet facilities, the effects can only lend support to those who would behave as parishes used to behave towards indigent paupers, pushing them on to the next parish. But we solve no problems in that


way. Moving caravan dwellers along without thought to where they go, so that they create a similar problem elsewhere, while they are replaced by vagrants from somewhere else, is a heartless and brutal way of dealing with the problem and it solves no one's difficulties.
When the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, is activated, a number of these problems will disappear. Until then, it will not do just to play this game of musical chairs at the expense of both the local residents and the caravan dwellers. It is here that there is a substantial difference between the situation of West Bromwich and that of Walsall, because the West Bromwich Council is trying quite sincerely and in good faith to deal with the matter.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: indicated assent.

Mr. Archer: I am very much obliged that the hon. Gentleman accepts this.
Together with the council of Wolverhampton, West Bromwich Council is looking at a specific site where it is hoped that it will at least be able to make its contribution to the problem.
Normally I do not have a great deal in common with the present council of West Bromwich. It has a different political composition now; I do not approve of its activities, and I am sure that it does not approve of mine. But I know most of the councillors, and I know the officials of the council, and I can assure the House that I accept that this is a genuine search for a solution to the problem.
If the House desires, I can give further details, but it may think that that would be undesirable at this rather early stage in the search. When the matter comes to Committee, the Committee will no doubt expect further details. As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, if those details are not forthcoming it may very well be that the Committee will take a certain view as to whether the Clause should be included. Having supported the Bill on Second Reading, I shall regard it as very much an obligation to keep a close eye on the matter on behalf of both the caravan dwellers, for whom hon. Members are properly concerned, and the residents of West Bromwich. In those circumstances

I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Having had an extremely helpful reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the conclusion of the last debate, I do not wish to detain the House any further, but I would be grateful if he could repeat his assurance and make it clear that it also applies to the other two Bills.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) that the West Bromwich Council is different in this respect from the Walsall Corporation in that at least it has shown willing by entering into discussions with the Wolverhampton Corporation to provide a jointly operated site. I congratulate it on that and hope that its endeavours meet success and that the Minister, as he promised in the Circular he issued after the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, was passed, will expedite loan sanction so that this contribution towards the solution of the difficulties of that area can be made as soon as possible. I only wish that the Walsall Corporation had shown a similarly forthcoming attitude.
I wish the hon. Member every success in the further progress of the Bill.

10.13 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): In response to the hon. Gentleman's invitation, I give the same assurances on the caravan Clauses of this Bill as I did on the last. We recommend that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, but my right hon. Friend will look very carefully at these provisions. So long as they do not breach the kind of conditions I stated before. I think that he would make a report in the same way. We do not think that the matter should be dealt with piecemeal. If an authority wants to do policing measures, provision of sites should be made at the same time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — WOLVERHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS DUTIES (DUMPING AND SUBSIDIES) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]

10.14 p.m.

The Chairman: Perhaps it would help the Committee if I announce that I have selected Amendment No. 1. It may be for the convenience of the Committee, knowing that, if it allowed me to put Clauses 1–14, en bloc.

Clauses 1 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE ON ORDERS, AND POWER OF REVOCATION ETC.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 12, line 41, leave out 'Board of Trade' and insert 'Treasury'.
Clause 15 purports to consolidate the law relating to the Parliamentary procedure on orders, which I might briefly call dumping orders, made by the Board of Trade. At the end of the Bill, in the Table showing the derivations of the provisions, we are informed that Clause 15 is derived from Section 11(1) of the Customs Duty (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, from Section 13(6) of the Import Duties Act, 1958, and from some Sections of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Amendment Act, 1968.
Subsection (1) of Clause 15 provides that a Board of Trade dumping order shall be made by Statutory Instrument which generally shall be subject to annulment procedure in this House. Subsection (2) applies the affirmative procedure if the order imposes a new duty or increases an existing duty. In that case, the order lasts for only 28 days unless the House resolves otherwise.
Subsection (3) states by whom the decision shall be made as to whether an order does or does not increase the duty

and therefore whether the order does or does not require an affirmative Resolution in order to keep it alive for more than 28 days. Under subsection (3), the decision is to lie with the Board of Trade—that is to say, it is to lie with the Department where the order is made. The Board of Trade will be able to decide, therefore, whether the order increases a duty and therefore whether the House will have the opportunity of dealing with it on an affirmative Resolution or whether it will be left to the procedure by way of praying for the annulment of the order.
Under existing law, it is the Treasury and only the Treasury which can make that decision. This is because the Import Duties Act, 1932, gave power in Section 19 to the Treasury or the Board of Trade to make orders by Statutory Instrument concerning import duties. I stress that Section 19 dealt with orders by both the Treasury and the Board of Trade or, alternatively, either the Treasury or the Board of Trade. Section 19 made the same sort of provision about annulment procedures in this House if the order did not increase the duty or impose a new one. If it imposed a new duty or increased an existing duty, then it must have an affirmative Resolution of the House in order to keep it alive. The 1932 Act was followed by the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, which applied those powers given by the 1932 Act to the Board of Trade when making dumping orders.
The next relevant Statute is the Import Duties Act, 1958. That repealed the provisions of Section 19 of the Import Duties Act, 1932 and substituted its own Section 13. It is under that Section that the Board of Trade and the Treasury has powers to make orders. Section 13(2) of the 1958 Act says:
Any power of the Treasury or Board of Trade to make orders or regulations under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
So Section 13 of the 1958 Act applies to orders either by the Treasury or by the Board of Trade. Subsections (3) and (4) provide for the annulment procedure if the orders do not increase the duty or impose a new duty and the affirmative procedure if they increase the duty or impose a new duty.
Subsection (5) contains a provision setting out who shall decide whether the order increases a duty. I ought to read that, because it is the vital subsection, repeated partially but not accurately in Clause 15. It says:
Where an order has the effect of altering the rate of duty on any goods in such a way that the new rate is not directly comparable with the old, it shall not be treated for the purposes of subsection (4) of this section as increasing the duty on those goods"—
and therefore needing an affirmative Resolution—
if it declares the opinion of the Treasury to be that, in the circumstances existing at the date of the order, the alteration is not calculated to raise the general level of duty on the goods.
In a Section which deals with orders either by the Treasury or by the Board of Trade there is a specific provision that the Treasury shall come to a decision on the orders authorised by that Section and made by either the Treasury itself, or by the Board of Trade.
Orders made by the Board of Trade which come under subsection (5) require the decision of the Treasury as to whether they increase duty. An expression of opinion by the Board of Trade would not sufficiently come within Section 13(5) of the 1958 Act.
The draftsman of the Clause as it now appears justifies that by referring to Section 13(6) of the 1958 Act, which does no more than substitute Section 13 for the earlier provisions of the 1932 Act. If the draftsman's theory is accepted—that the Board of Trade can decide itself whether its own orders increase duty, if they are dumping orders—that theory must apply to all orders under Section 13 of the 1958 Act and this would be changing the well-established procedure of the House. I am sure that it has become well known that any import duties order which increases a duty or imposes a new duty requires an affirmative Resolution. If it is for the Board of Trade to decide whether the order increases duty, it is a complete change of procedure.
The draftsman of the Consolidation Bill seemed to think in his evidence to the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills that in the case of dumping orders it was all right for the Board of Trade to make the decision. He said,

referring to the subsection of the existing law:
What the subsection says is that if the Treasury certify that the order imposing an import duty is not basically increasing the level of the duty, then you can treat it as an order, not a charging order, and therefore not subject to an Affirmative Resolution but subject only to a Negative Resolution. As applied to orders of the Board of Trade in this field in which the Treasury are not concerned at all, it would really be a nonsense to require a certificate of the Treasury for that point.
But that is exactly what Section 13 of the 1958 Act does, and it has never been thought to be a nonsense until now.
He went on:
The plain sense of it is that a certificate of the Department making the order is required".
Then he admitted:
I thought it was justifiable to substitute the reference to the Board of Trade.
The noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee asked him:
Your view is that it really means that you incorporate the substance of subsections (3) to (5), Section 13, which there refers to the Treasury, into an Act which is referring to orders made by the Board of Trade; that is what really subsection (6) means?
The draftsman answered:
Subsection (6) means that it is the almost necessary modification to substitute a reference to the Board of Trade for the reference to the Treasury.
But that is not Section 13 or subsection (6) of that Section.
It is clear that, up to the present, under the existing law the Treasury has had to decide whether a Board of Trade dumping order increases duty, where it is not directly comparable with a previous order. Therefore, we are altering the law in this Consolidation Bill. It may be that it is right and proper to alter it in this form, but the Bill has been reported to the House by the Select Committee as containing no alterations in the law. This is a very clear alteration in the law, and the House ought to have a chance to decide whether it is right to alter the law in that way.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): This Amendment deals with a case, unlikely to arise in the context of this Bill, in which an order possibly increasing the duty in some instances is subject only to a negative Resolution and not to an affirmative Resolution if


it contains a certificate that the alteration in the rate of duty is not calculated to raise the general level of duty.
The point dealt with is that substituting a rate of X per cent. on the value of the goods for a rate of, say, Y shillings per £ may in substance be a reduction of duty but at the same time increase the duty in certain instances.
The effect of the Amendment would be that orders of the Board of Trade under the Bill for this purpose would have to declare the opinion of the Treasury instead of the opinion of the Board of Trade that the general level of duty was not raised. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) very helpfully gave notice on Second Reading of his intention to move this Amendment, on the ground that the Bill, as it stands, would change the law and is not pure consolidation. He supported this by quoting from the evidence of the draftsman before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. He said that the draftsman recognised, in his evidence, that an alteration in the law was being made.
10.30 p.m.
I think that there is a misunderstanding here and a misreading of the evidence of the draftsman. I think that the draftsman was arguing that, as a matter of construction and of law, it was right for the Bill to refer to the Board of Trade. This argument was accepted by the Committee, and its acceptance of the argument made it possible for it to report, as it did, that it considered
that the Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law.
The question arises because the present law depends on the way a particular subsection in the Import Duties Act, 1968, namely, subsection (6) of Section 13, dealing with orders of the Treasury under that Act, is applied to orders of the Board of Trade under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957.
Section 13(5) of the Import Duties Act, 1958, corresponds to Clause 15(3) of the Bill. It says of orders of the Treasury under the 1958 Act that they do not need an affirmative Resolution if they embody the appropriate declaration of the opinion of the Treasury.
The first passage cited by the hon. Gentleman from the draftsman's evidence dealt only with this subsection as it applies directly to these orders of the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1958. The draftsman was not saying that the present law requires the opinion of the Treasury to be stated in orders of the Board of Trade under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957. The subsection is applied to these last orders by the joint effect of Section 11(1) of the 1957 Act and Section 13(6) of the 1958 Act.
In making this application the Acts do not contain any explicit provision adapting the reference to the opinion of the Treasury; but the draftsman's suggestion to the Select Committee was that this substitution ought to be made as a matter of law. Without it the result would not be parallel under the two Acts, in that an order of the Treasury under the 1958 Act would declare the opinion of the Treasury—that is, the Department making the order—while an order of the Board of Trade under the 1957 Act would declare the opinion, not of the Board, but of the Treasury, which not only does not make the order but is not otherwise concerned with it or with its subject matter.
The draftsmen also submitted to the Committee—this can be seen in his answer to Question No. 8 on page 3 of the Report—that, apart from the sense of the thing, there is enough in the wording of Section 13(6) of the 1958 Act to justify this substitution in the terms of Section 13(5) when transposed into Clause 15(3) of the Bill. The important point for the Committee is that these arguments were accepted by that Committee which certified that in its view the Bill did not change the law.
In those circumstances, as I understand it, it would in any event be impossible to accept the Amendment since this would have the effect of making the law on the point the opposite of what the Committee believed it to be having heard the evidence of the draftsman. The only alternative to the Bill as it stands is to continue to legislate by reference so as to preserve as nearly as may be any doubt that there is about the present law, and that would seem, I suggest to the Committee, a very undesirable outcome.
The fact that a question is raised before the Joint Committee does not necessarily mean that there is a real doubt. There are points to which it is right in our procedures to draw the Committee's attention because it is not clear without argument and explanation that the Bill does reproduce the existing law, and that is what I think happened here. The Committee then, in the procedure that it adopts, decides whether or not there is any doubt which ought to be preserved, or whether the Bill can be accepted as reproducing the existing law. In this case the Committee has decided, rightly as I believe having considered the point, that the draft Bill reproduces the existing law.
That is the argument that I venture to put forward as a ground for inviting the Committee to resist the Amendment, and the explanation that I am happy to offer the hon. Gentleman of how this matter has developed in the way that it has.

Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps I might answer the Solicitor-General on two points. First, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it would be impossible to make this Amendment, but it is clear from Erskine May that Amendments of this kind can be accepted by the Chairman of the Committee. It has been accepted as an Amendment for debate, and surely one cannot say that the debate is purposeless. If the Committee decided that this was an alteration in the law, it would in common sense and in logic be entitled to make the Amendment, otherwise it is complete nonsense for us to be debating it at all. If I were to satisfy the Committee that the Bill altered the existing law, then the Amendment could be made by the Committee, and should be made.
My second point relates to the types of order dealt with under Section 13 of the 1958 Act. There is no doubt whatever that under that Section both types-of order, an order by the Treasury and an order by the Board of Trade, are subject to a decision by the Treasury as to whether it is an order which increases duty if it is an order which is not directly comparable with a previous order. Subsection (5) cannot be read in any other way than as dealing with two types of order referred to earlier in that Section.

The earlier subsection says:
Any power of the Treasury or Board of Trade to make orders or regulations under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
These are the types of order dealt with in the Section either by the Treasury or the Board of Trade.
We then come to subsection (5), which provides that the Treasury shall decide. It does not restrict it to orders made by the Treasury. It applies to orders made by the Treasury or the Board of Trade. It does not say that the Treasury or the Board of Trade shall make the decision, according to which one makes the order.

The Solicitor-General: Out of courtesy to the hon. Member I suggest to him that there is great force in the substance of the expression of opinion put before the Committee by the witness, as the proceedings of the Committee are reported. I suggest that the legal position is not at all clear, in the sense that the hon. Member has indicated. There may have been an ambiguity that it was appropriate for the Committee to consider, but what the draftsman had to say was defensible on its merits, and he reached a conclusion which the Committee thought it right to accept.
As I see it, on this point, as Section 13 is drawn up the orders under subsection (5) declare the opinion of the Treasury because it is the Treasury that makes the orders and not because the matter is one specially within the knowledge of the Treasury. So we have the position—which, as I understand it, the draftsman put to the Committee—that on a correct reading of Section 13 in a Treasury order one looked for a Treasury declaration and, by parity of reasoning, in a Board of Trade order one looked for a Board of Trade declaration.
In my proposition to the Committee a court construing Section 13 and reading it with the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, would come to the conclusion, in view of the existing law, that was taken by the Committee, namely, that the declaration under subsection (6) referred to a declaration of the Board of Trade where dumping was concerned.

Mr. Graham Page: The Solicitor-General persists in saying that subsection (5), which deals with the decision to be made, related only to orders made


by the Treasury. It does not say so. In fact, we must necessarily refer back to the earlier subsection, which talks about orders made by the Treasury or the Board of Trade. There is nothing within subsection (5) which restricts the orders about which it is talking to the Treasury order. It starts by saying:
Where an order has the effect of altering the rate of duty
—and that phrase, "an order", must refer back to the previous subsection, which mentions orders either by the Treasury or the Board of Trade—in such a way that the new rate is not directly comparable with the old, then the opinion of the Treasury is required to decide whether it increases the duty or imposes a new duty.
I do not want to labour the point. It is clear where the hon. and learned Gentleman and I differ on this point. I believe that I am justified in raising the point even though the Select Committee accepted the draftsman's argument, and I feel that the Committee should have reported to the House not that this was pure consolidation but consolidation with, say, minor Amendments. This would have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that there was this alteration—a question about which no hon. Member would know unless he took the trouble to read the Minutes of Evidence of the Joint Committee.
I think it wrong to alter the law in this respect. The present practice of the Treasury, such as vetting Board of Trade orders so that the House may have an opportunity of dealing with them by way of an affirmative Resolution, ought not to be removed, and I want to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the Select Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Dr. Miller.]

Orders of the Day — SHELTON HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]

10.46 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: On 25th February of last year a serious fire occurred at the Shelton Mental Hospital near Shrewsbury in my constituency. In one of the wards 21 of the 42 patients lost their lives. It was a women's psychiatric ward occupied mostly by elderly and bedridden patients. I mention this not to create emotion but to place the facts on the record.
In a Private Notice Question the following day I pointed out, among other things, that the building had been erected 14 years before the Indian Mutiny. Being a quite solid building, I suppose that, on purely structural grounds, it is correct to say that it should be restored to its previous condition. That would be true if it were anything other than a mental hospital.
As I have said many times, it was built in the age of mad-houses and is wholly unsuited to the requirements of modern medical knowledge and to an age in which we are endeavouring to understand and treat mental sickness. In making these comments I am not criticising the hospital management committee, the Minister of Health or the present Government. I appreciate only too well that this is a problem affecting not one but every post-war Government and every Minister of Health.
Following the fire an inquiry was conducted, under Mr. Sabin, into its causes. Although the inquiry had some critcisms to make, I will not dwell on them. But all the criticisms having been made and all the prayers having been said, we are left with this building.
I wish to make it clear that I do not speak tonight for the management committee. Nobody has sought to brief me. I speak for myself and for myself alone. I hope that the figures I have are accurate. I believe that since 1948 capital expenditure on the hospital has been £689,052. Care and maintenance costs over the same period have amounted to £722,532. That is a total of £1,411,584. Allowing for the loss in the value of money, I suppose that it is fair to say that that sum represents about half of the cost of a new hospital today.
A great deal of money has been spent on the hospital, and some of the figures are worth noting. The building of a nurses home and training school some years ago cost £137,684; a new boiler-house, £43,848; rewiring of wards, about £35,000; provision of heating and hot water installations, £38,220. These and other expenditures amount to about £355,900. The effect of building a new hospital at once, were that possible, would be to make many of these expenditures a waste of money, and this is probably one of the deterrents to the rebuilding that I hope will take place.
I am sure that the Minister and I are absolutely at one, and that our aim is the same—to make the best use of the resources which are available and which are likely to become available in the future. How much is available to the Health Service at large, how much to the hospital service and how much to the mental hospitals within that service is a political question on which I will not dwell tonight. One can say, I suppose, that more money has been spent in 1969 than in 1964. It is probably equally true to say that more money was spent in 1964 than in 1951. These are sterile and unworthy arguments, and I would not seek to put them forward. Our main consideration, tonight and always, must be the service that can be provided to the patients, who are the sufferers in all this.
What are we to do? We can go on providing as much money as we can from time to time. We can go on repairing and patching up this old building. Alternatively, and this is the course I urge on the Minister, we can look forward to, say, 1987, which is about as far ahead from the present day as 1967

was when the Health Service began. We can look forward to that time, because then mental medicine will be about as far away from us as are the mad-houses of the nineteenth century, when this hospital was built.
I ask the Minister, first of all, to take a special interest in this hospital. I know that there are other mental hospitals, all of which have their problems and some of which have recently acquired publicity, but a particular moment has arisen in this hospital as a result of this tragic fire. I ask the Minister to see if we can now work to a plan, because it is clear that this old building, if it is to continue to be patched up, will not be able to do its job in 1987. More money spent on patching it up would put off the chance of a new building being constructed. I ask the Minister to produce a blueprint of a new hospital on that or an adjoining site. I do not ask him to produce an extravagant blueprint, but one which will look as far into the future as possible so that those who sit on these benches in 1987 will not be faced with this same problem.
Having produced that plan, I ask him to see that every development and expenditure is made on that hospital to conform with that plan. In that way I am certain that in 20 years from now we shall be providing a far better service than would have seemed possible only a few years ago.

10.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) for raising this matter. I assure him that I am very interested in this hospital, so much so that I have already planned to visit it on 30th May. This from my point of view adds to the interest in this debate. I know that the hon. Member has visited the hospital on a number of occasions and shown much interest in it.
The problems are not just problems of finance. There are some fundamental questions of philosophy and it is in the context of how we ought to deal not only with patients in Shelton but the problem of mental patients generally, which is the real issue. Great advances are being made in the care and treatment


of mental illness and it is our responsibility to see that the National Health Service evolves to match these changes and to contain them within the total available resources of skilled manpower and money. Treatment for mental illness is directed to the patient's rehabilitation and his return to the community. The old concept of going into a mad-house and of patients spending the rest of their lives there is absolutely out. It is a bygone concept, and thank God that is so.
As a result, much more active treatment is directed to getting patients back into the community, and 90 per cent. of new mental illness patients now leave hospital within a year, half of them within six months. The numbers of mentally ill patients in hospital at any time are far fewer today than they were a few years ago.
Regional hospital boards were advised in 1964 how to improve the effectiveness of hospitals for the mentally ill. They were asked to take these concepts into account when planning the development of their hospital services. In the review of the hospital plan of 1965 they were asked to give psychiatric services a due and early share of capital and revenue resources. Last year we advised boards what accommodation should be provided at district general hospitals for the psychiatric services.
Our policy now is not to replace existing buildings by new ones on the same site but rather the opposite. We see the psychiatric services of the future centred not on large and often isolated hospitals but on the community. A district general hospital should have a mental illness unit, usually of 90 to 120 beds, with 120–160 day places, to serve some 150,000–250,000 people. This unit should serve any type of mentally ill patient except the few who need treatment under conditions of special security. The day places would provide patients, both from the in patient beds and the surrounding community, with occupational, recreational and other rehabilitation facilities. There should be close links with the community services. These units would deal with the new patients suffering from mental illness.
The existing, large, out-of-date psychiatric hospitals should not be part of

the future pattern. In the meantime some improvements at older hospitals may be necessary to raise standards of accommodation. Such expenditure must be related to the length of life planned for the hospital, the ultimate object being to replace it by a modern comprehensive service based on the district general hospital. In the last few years a number of new units have been opened. I should like to be present at the closure of some of these enormous hospitals for the mentally ill. Such hospitals are part of our past and are certainly not part of the future concept of handling mental illness.
As I have explained, rebuilding Shelton Hospital has never been a practical proposition, because it would not fit in with these new concepts. Even if the tragic fire last February had caused more extensive damage than it did—and only one ward was damaged badly on the upper floor of a ward block—the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board could only have considered replacing what was burnt owing to the structure of the building which remained. The Board has arranged to reinstate the damaged ward and this work should be completed this summer. Thirty-nine patients will be accommodated in the rebuilt ward, instead of 45 patients as before. At the same time some changes will be made to provide additional safeguards against fire and improve the facilities, so that there will be significant differences in the layout of the floor.
As the hon. Member may know, there are about 13 large and very old psychiatric hospitals, including Shelton, in the Birmingham region. Most were built in the nineteenth century. Shelton was built in 1843, as the hon. Member said, and the block where the fire occurred a few years later.
The Board's building programme will provide psychiatric facilities in district general hospitals as they are built, and the service provided by the old large hospitals is being gradually reduced. There is, for instance, a new psychiatric unit at the district general hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, another will be opened at Coventry this year, and a third at Wolverhampton next year. This progress will continue as present building plans are realised.
The Government are involved in a huge building programme which dwarfs


the efforts of previous Administrations. The hon. Gentleman said that this is a sterile argument. It is not. One has to spend money to build. We are now spending five times what was being spent 10 years ago. We are spending 10 times as much as was being spent on hospital building in the first 10 years of the National Health Service. This is not surprising. Money has to be found to do this. We would not be able to replace, in the long term, hospitals like Shelton unless we could provide what we need in the new district general hospitals which are being built as the programme goes forward.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I meant that it was sterile in that I did not wish to bandy figures across the House in order to score points off the Minister.

Mr. Ennals: This is not sterile because it is the meat of making the Health Service effective and able to deal with present problems. We could not deal with it unless we were prepared to make public resources available to do so.
Between July, 1948, and March last year the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board spent £6·3 million, or over 12½ per cent. of its capital resources on improving the mental illness services. Half as much again was spent on improvements for mental subnormality.
In the Board's current building programme no money is allocated to rebuild psychiatric hospitals as such, but the Board has drawn up a programme to provide such facilities in district general hospitals. This is the pattern which is going forward.
Meanwhile, in the old psychiatric hospitals and with improvements being made to them, the staff are treating an increasing number of patients for short periods in hospital. In 1967, 82 per cent. of the male and 86 per cent. of the female mentally ill patients in the region spent less than three months in such hospitals. One gets a rapid turnover of people diagnosed as being mentally sick, they go into hospital, they are treated and come back again into the community.
I can illustrate the effect of the Board's policy by considering Shelton Hospital itself. There has been a steady decline in the number of patients. In

1960 there were 1,012 patients, in 1962 there were 959 patients, and in 1967 there were 761 patients. When Beech Ward has been reinstated there will be 699 patients. There has been a rapid and steady decrease. Seven years ago 70 per cent. of the male and 73 per cent. of the female patients were inpatients for less than three months. In 1967—the last year for which figures are available—the percentages had risen to 82 per cent. and 86 per cent. respectively. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry last year mentioned the programme of continual improvements carried out there by the Board over the years.
I want to pay my tribute to those who have worked in Shelton Hospital. There have been some criticisms because of the fire, but I want to pay my tribute to the service which has been given in treating patients who are there and many who are not there now but are living happily in the community.
The hon. Member mentioned £1½ million as having been spent on the hospital since 1948. I think that he mentioned it when he was interviewed on the Midland Region of the B.B.C. today. He must recognise that this sum, if that is exactly the figure—I do not question it—was spent over a period of 20 years in all sorts of different ways. Most of what was available in the early years was spent on the laundry, which serves not only Shelton Hospital but other hospitals in the Shrewsbury Group. In the long term the Board plans to provide psychiatric services for the area now served by Shelton Hospital at the new Copthorne District General Hospital, Shrewsbury, and probably at Telford Hospital.
Regional hospital boards, in consultation with the Department, are responsible for drawing up their own building programme giving priority to the areas of greatest need. The 1966 Review of the Programme—Cmnd. 3000—showed that the Birmingham Region has to plan for a population which is expected to increase by one-fifth to some 5·97 million in 1981, largely by a high rate of natural increase in and immigration into the region. The major problems are to provide for this increase, including the new towns proposed at Telford and Redditch, to provide better accommodation where


there are large populations, and to improve the hospitals elsewhere and also the geriatric and psychiatric services. Inevitably the Board is faced with tremendous problems in assessing priorities where the backlog of old and inadequate buildings is great.
This evening the hon. Member has argued that the Board should replace a psychiatric hospital, and I have explained why this will not and should not be done. On other occasions he has drawn attention to the large waiting lists for general surgery in Shrewsbury and pressed for earlier provision of a district general hospital. He also pressed for planning of this hospital to continue when it seemed that building schemes with a higher priority elsewhere in the region might absorb all the Board's resources. The hon. Gentleman was doing his constituency duty well.
I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not now arguing that the reprovision of the Shelton Hospital facilities should take precedence over any improvement in acute services at Shrewsbury.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: indicated assent.

Mr. Ennals: From the indication the hon. Gentleman is giving I assume that he is not arguing this. In fact the need for additional acute facilities at Shrewsbury has been recognised by the Board as being so urgent that it has already provided a maternity unit with boilerhouse

and engineering services. The second stage of the rebuilding, to provide an out-patient department and some diagnostic departments, is in progress now and further stages to provide acute beds, geriatric and psychiatric services are envisaged as the Board's resources and priorities permit. Similar claims could be pressed on the Board by all hon. Members representing constituencies in that region. All in all, I think that the Board is sensibly following a carefully prepared programme with reasonable provision being made for the most urgently needed services.
The fire at Shelton Hospital affected seriously only one ward. This justified reinstating the ward only, as the Board is doing. The Board plans to continue to make improvements at Shelton Hospital and to reduce the number of patients there.
In the long term, the best solution for Shelton is not to rebuild it or to rebuild any of the other 12 large psychiatric hospitals in the region, but to provide psychiatric facilities at the new district general hospitals, and the Board is making this provision in its hospital building programme. Inevitably this will take time and money, but I am sure hon. Members will agree that this is the right and proper course.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.